Video emerges of Georgia jogger attack; case headed to grand jury

[Faun]

Because they were chasing him, attempting to cut him off and intercept him and pulled their truck up to him specifically to stop him.

And that does not justify Arbery's aggression.

If you can’t see where McMichael is, then how can you say it’s clear that he never approached Arbery? You can’t. It’s not “clear”. It’s anything but.

You can't see him anywhere in the frame when Arbery RUNS AT HIM!!!!

.

The video confirms this was self defense, not aggression. The shot rang out at the point Avery was rounding the vehicle. The aggression is from those who were in possession of illegally loaded firearms.

Yeah, what part of the video do you see where the dead guy initially feared for his life? It’s not there. All you see is the black guy being aggressive toward a white dude. That’s what’s making you fucking pissed off. A white dude killed a black dude who deserved it.

Boo fucking who.

Guys having guns does not equal aggression, you gun-grabbing twat. Running at someone is. You can cry all you want. The black dude was the aggressor and deserved to die. Fuck him.

So, considering that you see things so crystal clear, do you believe the McMichael's will be exonerated?

I’m not sure.

All I’m saying is the video does not provide any evidence of anybody being an aggressor but the dead guy.

Show me anywhere in that video where you see anybody but the dead guy being the initial aggressor. And I don’t wanna hear any shit about them stopping their truck. That is not aggression. I don’t wanna hear any shit about them having guns. That is not aggression either.

.

"Show me anywhere in that video where you see anybody but the dead guy being the initial aggressor."

Where they cut him off in their vehicle and got out armed. That's an aggressive maneuver.

If he was innocent, he would have stopped and proven his innocence. He attacked someone instead, so now he paid the price.

LOLOL

Who the fuck is gonna stop and talk to some armed guys screaming at them from their vehicle. And why should Arbery have stopped to talk to them? The murderers had zero authority to stop him.

Sure they had authority. You have never heard of a citizens arrest?

Let's try this one last time...

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.​

What "felony" did Arbery commit in Travis McMichael's "presence" or within his "immediate knowledge?"

Yes, he matched the description of a guy in a suspected burglary that literally just happened. They knew about it and spotted him. That is a text book citizens arrest.

Post evidence of what you're claiming because all the police report indicated was that Gregory McMichael saw him running down the street and that Travis McMichael saw nothing at all. Post evidence they knew he had just emerged from that construction site seconds earlier....

 

[Faun]

All hell breaks loose in that he has two men he doesn't know confront him with a gun.

The "hell" didn't start breaking loose until he decided to run at McMichael. No hell was breaking loose until that happened.

Nobody had done anything that would reasonably place Arbery in apprehension of IMMEDIATELY receiving a violent injury (see Georgia statute).

.

We don't hear the audio. We don't know what if any was the verbal exchange. That is the big issue. I am curious how this gets decided in the court system.

I heard freeze. that's it. it was quite faint. still never saw them confront the black man. they did not approach him at all. he approached them.

If someone on the street told you to freeze, would you? They are not police officers. This will go to trial for sure. Let's see what happens?

Yes, of course i would freeze. Any peaceful citizen who doesnt want to get shot would. Since when have criminals yelled "freeze"? Only good guys say that. Bad guys would just shoot.

And if you choose to stop, that would be your choice. Arbery chose to not stop. He even tried to get away from them. Instead, they drove around and cut off his path a second time. Only this time, Travis exited his vehicle and brandished a weapon. Then they lied to the police, claiming they were just driving alongside of Arbery, yelling at him to stop; when the truth is, they had parked down the street where he was heading and cut him off.

 

[Faun]

He could have more than likely. But his flight/fight reflex led him astray. So you think the assailants have zero responsibility here?

I didn't say they had zero responsibility, but if his fight/flight reflexes led him astray, wouldn't that same defense be available to Daddy McMichael watching his son in a deadly struggle for a shotgun that would most likely result in his son's death?

.

Yep, it would. But there is no way they could have been in that position if the son had not been pointing the gun at the victim.

Well, there would have been no struggle had McMichael been pointing the gun. Have you seen what a shotgun will do to a human body?

.

He believed his life was in grave danger. He made a move and he lost his life.

that seems odd to run 100 feet and put yourself into danger.

Life is odd. It seems odd that people call Trump a Russian agent. But they do. Just because someone is stupid doesn't mean they have to die.

well stupid is still stupid. and running 100 feet to engage in a suicide confrontation is beyond stupid, especially when there is acres of open field and road to avoid such confrontation. that's beyond stupid. it's suicide.

I do not disagree with you there. My guess is there was a verbal altercation. Dude gets out with a gun and all hell breaks loose. JUST A GUESS ON MY PART.

And, by "all hell breaks loose" you mean the victim decides to act in a fashion inconsistent with someone in actual apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.

In fact, the actions of the Arbery would put a reasonable person in apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury, and in fact, resulted in McMichael receiving violent injuries (punches to the head).

.
.

All hell breaks loose in that he has two men he doesn't know confront him with a gun.

no one confronted the black man with a gun. you should perhaps look up that word.

Then why did the victim grab it? For fun?

It's anyone's guess why Arbery decided to go after McMichael's gun, but such action supports the inference that Arbery was not in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury. Otherwise, he would have flinched, or ducked, or ran, or just stopped and held up his hands.

.

He did maneuver himself strategically to avoid being shot at. He was initially heading to the left of the truck. When he spotted Travis McMichael standing there with a shotgun, he moved to the right of the truck and went to the front to fight for his life.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

How could the McMichael's suspect burglary when one of them only saw Arbery running and the other one saw nothing at all?

I don't know how they could suspect him. All that matters is that they did.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And if you choose to stop, that would be your choice. Arbery chose to not stop. He even tried to get away from them. Instead, they drove around and cut off his path a second time. Only this time, Travis exited his vehicle and brandished a weapon. Then they lied to the police, claiming they were just driving alongside of Arbery, yelling at him to stop; when the truth is, they had parked down the street where he was heading and cut him off.

Arbery chose to try and take a gun away from another person.

None of that other shit amounts to placing Arbery in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury (Georgia statute).

And, in fact, Arbery's actions support the inference that he was not in reasonable apprehension. His actions support the inference that he was the aggressor.

.

 

[Faun]

How could the McMichael's suspect burglary when one of them only saw Arbery running and the other one saw nothing at all?

I don't know how they could suspect him. All that matters is that they did.

.

So by magic then?

Also, he didn't commit a burglary, so there's that.

 

[Faun]

And if you choose to stop, that would be your choice. Arbery chose to not stop. He even tried to get away from them. Instead, they drove around and cut off his path a second time. Only this time, Travis exited his vehicle and brandished a weapon. Then they lied to the police, claiming they were just driving alongside of Arbery, yelling at him to stop; when the truth is, they had parked down the street where he was heading and cut him off.

Arbery chose to try and take a gun away from another person.

None of that other shit amounts to placing Arbery in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury (Georgia statute).

And, in fact, Arbery's actions support the inference that he was not in reasonable apprehension. His actions support the inference that he was the aggressor.

.

Nope, they initiated the confrontation. They're the ones who got in their truck to chase him down just because they saw him running through their neighborhood. They're the ones who blocked his path, causing him to change direction in an attempt to get away from them. They're the ones who drove around to block his path again. They're the ones who got out of their vehicle, parked in the middle of a street, brandishing a firearm.

They were the initiators of the entire conflict.

That produces a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm; for which Georgia law permitted Arbery to stand his ground and defend himself by trying to wrestle the gun from McMichael.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

How could the McMichael's suspect burglary when one of them only saw Arbery running and the other one saw nothing at all?

I don't know how they could suspect him. All that matters is that they did.

.

So by magic then?

Also, he didn't commit a burglary, so there's that.

If you want to talk about a bunch of irrelevant shit, go ahead.

It's not a crime to be armed. You asked why they were armed. The answer is because they suspected Arbery of burglary. That's all there is to say about it.

Is it your argument that they were armed because they intended to kill Arbery, no matter what he did?

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Nope, they initiated the confrontation.

Not assault under the Georgia statute. No evidence that they put Arbery in reasonable apprehension of IMMEDIATELY receiving a violent injury. (see statute)

They're the ones who got in their truck to chase him down just because they saw him running through their neighborhood.

Still not assault.

They're the ones who blocked his path,

Not assault.

causing him to change direction in an attempt to get away from them.

Still not assault.

They're the ones who drove around to block his path again.

Still not assault.

They're the ones who got out of their vehicle, parked in the middle of a street, brandishing a firearm.

Still not assault unless you have proof that they pointed a gun with the intent to put him in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury (they were going to actually shoot him)(the video proves otherwise). Possession of a gun does not do that absent more facts.

They were the initiators of the entire conflict.

But, the evidence shows that he was the actual initiator of AN ASSAULT. (see statute)

That produces a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm;

But, that's not the statute language. They had to put him in REASONABLE apprehension of IMMEDIATELY receiving a violent injury. All I see in the video is Arbery putting McMichael in apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury, and McMichael ACTUALLY RECEIVING a violent injury (punches to the head).

for which Georgia law permitted Arbery to stand his ground and defend himself by trying to wrestle the gun from McMichael.

And, once again, you misinterpret and misapply the "stand your ground" doctrine. All that does is remove the duty to retreat when acting in self defense. It does not remove all evidence of Arbery NOT being in reasonable apprehension. RUNNING at a guy who is (allegedly, but likely NOT) pointing a gun at you is NOT evidence of reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.

.

 

[Faun]

How could the McMichael's suspect burglary when one of them only saw Arbery running and the other one saw nothing at all?

I don't know how they could suspect him. All that matters is that they did.

.

So by magic then?

Also, he didn't commit a burglary, so there's that.

If you want to talk about a bunch of irrelevant shit, go ahead.

It's not a crime to be armed. You asked why they were armed. The answer is because they suspected Arbery of burglary. That's all there is to say about it.

Is it your argument that they were armed because they intended to kill Arbery, no matter what he did?

.

No, I didn't ask why they were armed. You got that wrong too. And no, I don't believe it was their intent to kill him. Try sticking to what I'm actually saying. What I'm actually saying is all that "shit" you are trying to dismiss as "irrelevant" is actually all germane to the event it led up to. It's relevant that they didn't see him or have direct knowledge of him committing a felony since their defense is they trying to enforce a citizen's arrest. Except a required element of enforcing a citizen's arrest is witnessing or having direct knowledge that a felony was committed. It's also relevant that they chased him down, first blocking his path causing him to change direction, then blocking him a second time, this time armed with a shotgun. It shows they were chasing after him and that he was aware they were chasing after him. Then given he had tried once in vain to get away from them and boxed in with another vehicle behind him, only now seeing they've armed themselves, it's reasonable for him to believe their intent was to kill him. It's reasonable for him to attempt to disarm the guy he could have reasonably believed was going to kill him.

 

[Faun]

Nope, they initiated the confrontation.

Not assault under the Georgia statute. No evidence that they put Arbery in reasonable apprehension of IMMEDIATELY receiving a violent injury. (see statute)

They're the ones who got in their truck to chase him down just because they saw him running through their neighborhood.

Still not assault.

They're the ones who blocked his path,

Not assault.

causing him to change direction in an attempt to get away from them.

Still not assault.

They're the ones who drove around to block his path again.

Still not assault.

They're the ones who got out of their vehicle, parked in the middle of a street, brandishing a firearm.

Still not assault unless you have proof that they pointed a gun with the intent to put him in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury (they were going to actually shoot him)(the video proves otherwise). Possession of a gun does not do that absent more facts.

They were the initiators of the entire conflict.

But, the evidence shows that he was the actual initiator of AN ASSAULT. (see statute)

That produces a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm;

But, that's not the statute language. They had to put him in REASONABLE apprehension of IMMEDIATELY receiving a violent injury. All I see in the video is Arbery putting McMichael in apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury, and McMichael ACTUALLY RECEIVING a violent injury (punches to the head).

for which Georgia law permitted Arbery to stand his ground and defend himself by trying to wrestle the gun from McMichael.

And, once again, you misinterpret and misapply the "stand your ground" doctrine. All that does is remove the duty to retreat when acting in self defense. It does not remove all evidence of Arbery NOT being in reasonable apprehension. RUNNING at a guy who is (allegedly, but likely NOT) pointing a gun at you is NOT evidence of reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.

.

Here's Georgia's self-defense law. See if you can find in there where an assault must first occur before someone can use that law to defend themselves....

Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-3-21 | FindLaw

Georgia Title 16. Crimes and Offenses Section 16-3-21. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

I see nothing in there about "assault" or "violent injury." It looks to me like you're making that shit up because the actual law doesn't actually support your nonsense.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

How could the McMichael's suspect burglary when one of them only saw Arbery running and the other one saw nothing at all?

I don't know how they could suspect him. All that matters is that they did.

.

What we know about Ahmaud Arbery's killing | CNN

After moving at a plodding pace for more than two months, the case of Ahmaud Arbery's killing has, from an investigative perspective, hit warp speed.

www.cnn.com

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No, I didn't ask why they were armed. You got that wrong too. And no, I don't believe it was their intent to kill him. Try sticking to what I'm actually saying. What I'm actually saying is all that "shit" you are trying to dismiss as "irrelevant" is actually all germane to the event it led up to. It's relevant that they didn't see him or have direct knowledge of him committing a felony since their defense is they trying to enforce a citizen's arrest. Except a required element of enforcing a citizen's arrest is witnessing or having direct knowledge that a felony was committed. It's also relevant that they chased him down, first blocking his path causing him to change direction, then blocking him a second time, this time armed with a shotgun. It shows they were chasing after him and that he was aware they were chasing after him.

If you're arguing that they had no right to make a "citizen's arrest" you will get no argument from me on that point. I don't know one way or another, but I think they were stupid to attempt it either way. If they should get punished for something, it should be that. I am only addressing the question regarding why they were armed.

Then given he had tried once in vain to get away from them and boxed in with another vehicle behind him, only now seeing they've armed themselves, it's reasonable for him to believe their intent was to kill him. It's reasonable for him to attempt to disarm the guy he could have reasonably believed was going to kill him.

It is NOT reasonable to believe their intent was to kill him when they had not attempted to many times before. Completely unreasonable to believe that.

Disarming a guy is assault unless there is legal justification, such as self defense. Self defense in Georgia follows the assault statute:



https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury-i...on-use-of-force-in-defense-of-self-or-others/"A person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when, and to the extent that, he/she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself/herself or a third person against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person is justified in using force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if that person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself/herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

Once again, Arbery's own actions prove he himself used deadly force when it does not appear that such force was necessary to prevent imminent force used against him.

On the contrary, Arbery's actions support the conclusion that he placed McMichael in reasonable apprehension of immediate violent injury, given that he ran at and nearly took the shotgun from McMichael. Furthermore, Daddy McMichael is justified in SHOOTING Arbery under the self defense statue above. If Arbery takes the gun from McMichael, he would likely have turned it on McMichael and shot him.


.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Nope, they initiated the confrontation.

Not assault under the Georgia statute. No evidence that they put Arbery in reasonable apprehension of IMMEDIATELY receiving a violent injury. (see statute)

They're the ones who got in their truck to chase him down just because they saw him running through their neighborhood.

Still not assault.

They're the ones who blocked his path,

Not assault.

causing him to change direction in an attempt to get away from them.

Still not assault.

They're the ones who drove around to block his path again.

Still not assault.

They're the ones who got out of their vehicle, parked in the middle of a street, brandishing a firearm.

Still not assault unless you have proof that they pointed a gun with the intent to put him in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury (they were going to actually shoot him)(the video proves otherwise). Possession of a gun does not do that absent more facts.

They were the initiators of the entire conflict.

But, the evidence shows that he was the actual initiator of AN ASSAULT. (see statute)

That produces a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm;

But, that's not the statute language. They had to put him in REASONABLE apprehension of IMMEDIATELY receiving a violent injury. All I see in the video is Arbery putting McMichael in apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury, and McMichael ACTUALLY RECEIVING a violent injury (punches to the head).

for which Georgia law permitted Arbery to stand his ground and defend himself by trying to wrestle the gun from McMichael.

And, once again, you misinterpret and misapply the "stand your ground" doctrine. All that does is remove the duty to retreat when acting in self defense. It does not remove all evidence of Arbery NOT being in reasonable apprehension. RUNNING at a guy who is (allegedly, but likely NOT) pointing a gun at you is NOT evidence of reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.

.

Here's Georgia's self-defense law. See if you can find in there where an assault must first occur before someone can use that law to defend themselves....

Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-3-21 | FindLaw

Georgia Title 16. Crimes and Offenses Section 16-3-21. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

I see nothing in there about "assault" or "violent injury." It looks to me like you're making that shit up because the actual law doesn't actually support your nonsense.

Yes. See my post above. Did you bother to read the entire statute?

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

(b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:

(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;
(2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or
(3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.

 

[Faun]

No, I didn't ask why they were armed. You got that wrong too. And no, I don't believe it was their intent to kill him. Try sticking to what I'm actually saying. What I'm actually saying is all that "shit" you are trying to dismiss as "irrelevant" is actually all germane to the event it led up to. It's relevant that they didn't see him or have direct knowledge of him committing a felony since their defense is they trying to enforce a citizen's arrest. Except a required element of enforcing a citizen's arrest is witnessing or having direct knowledge that a felony was committed. It's also relevant that they chased him down, first blocking his path causing him to change direction, then blocking him a second time, this time armed with a shotgun. It shows they were chasing after him and that he was aware they were chasing after him.

If you're arguing that they had no right to make a "citizen's arrest" you will get no argument from me on that point. I don't know one way or another, but I think they were stupid to attempt it either way. If they should get punished for something, it should be that. I am only addressing the question regarding why they were armed.

Then given he had tried once in vain to get away from them and boxed in with another vehicle behind him, only now seeing they've armed themselves, it's reasonable for him to believe their intent was to kill him. It's reasonable for him to attempt to disarm the guy he could have reasonably believed was going to kill him.

It is NOT reasonable to believe their intent was to kill him when they had not attempted to many times before. Completely unreasonable to believe that.

Disarming a guy is assault unless there is legal justification, such as self defense. Self defense in Georgia follows the assault statute:



https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury-i...on-use-of-force-in-defense-of-self-or-others/"A person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when, and to the extent that, he/she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself/herself or a third person against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person is justified in using force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if that person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself/herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

Once again, Arbery's own actions prove he himself used deadly force when it does not appear that such force was necessary to prevent imminent force used against him.

On the contrary, Arbery's actions support the conclusion that he placed McMichael in reasonable apprehension of immediate violent injury, given that he ran at and nearly took the shotgun from McMichael. Furthermore, Daddy McMichael is justified in SHOOTING Arbery under the self defense statue above. If Arbery takes the gun from McMichael, he would likely have turned it on McMichael and shot him.


.

Nothing in that statute about "assault" or "violent injury" being necessary to resort to lethal self-defense. And yes, facing someone brandishing a firearm after chasing you down does produce a reasonable fear of "imminent use of unlawful force."

 

[Faun]

(b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:

(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;
(2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or
(3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.

Arbery didn't provoke the force displayed against him. That was brought on by the McMichaels who chased him down because they Gregory McMichael saw him running. He was also not the initial aggressor. Again, the McMichaels were by chasing him down.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Nothing in that statute about "assault" or "violent injury" being necessary to resort to lethal self-defense. And yes, facing someone brandishing a firearm after chasing you down does produce a reasonable fear of "imminent use of unlawful force."

You pretty much ignored the entire statute.

"A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force;

What force did Arbery use? What imminent use of force did McMichael employ?

"a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself"

Arbery's act of running at McMichael and trying to take his gun by punching him is not consistent with the actions of one who reasonably believes that doing so is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury. In fact, it's just the opposite.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

(b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:

(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;
(2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or
(3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.

Arbery didn't provoke the force displayed against him. That was brought on by the McMichaels who chased him down because they Gregory McMichael saw him running. He was also not the initial aggressor. Again, the McMichaels were by chasing him down.

Here is what you are alleging, and I don't know that I disagree:

"(a) A person commits the offense of false imprisonment when, in violation of the personal liberty of another, he arrests, confines, or detains such person without legal authority.
(b) A person convicted of the offense of false imprisonment shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years.
(c) Any person convicted under this Code section wherein the victim is not the child of the defendant and the victim is less than 14 years of age shall, in addition, be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Section 17-10-6.2 ."

https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-16-crimes-and-offenses/ga-code-sect-16-5-41.html

 

[Coyote]

I posted several videos. Why did you only mention the first one? Your entire argument is based on lies. I posted several examples. Would you like 10 more that have nothing to do with someones home? 20? 30? How many must i post before you admit you are wrong?

I don't have time now to go into this further but I will answer your questions later on this evening if I have time.

In the meantime, I just checked with a CJTC firearm instructor (Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission) and he directed me to the specific page and paragraph in their training manual that answers your question which follows below. This is the same training I completed when I obtained my first WA Concealed Pistol License 19 years ago.

CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR UNLAWFUL USE OF FORCE
Use of force or deadly force when law does not allow it may result in your arrest for assault or homicide.
Criminal charges for an assault with a firearm do not necessarily require that the gun be fired; for example, someone who threatens another without legal justification by pointing a gun at him or her has committed an assault.

An assault with a firearm is usually considered to be a first or second-degree assault (both of these are felonies). Conviction of such a crime may carry a sentence from ten to 20 years. Should your use of force result in the unlawful death of another person, you may be charged with either manslaughter if your recklessness caused the death, or murder if you intended to kill the person.

Penalties for manslaughter may be up to ten years in prison. Murder carries a sentence up to life in prison, unless certain aggravating circumstances exist, in which case the court may impose the death penalty [Washington State no longer has a death penalty as of a few years ago].

It is your responsibility as the person carrying or using a weapon to use it responsibly and within the law. Neither your employer nor any other person is criminally responsible for your acts with a firearm. Under criminal law, you alone have the responsibility for any display or firing of a firearm. If you have any doubt about your ability to make crucial life-and-death decisions regarding the use of deadly force, then you should not carry a firearm.

None of that has anything at all to do with our debate. You said its illegal to point a gun at someone. I showed you that is not true. Good samaritans can absolutely point a gun at a suspected criminal.

LMAO... those two were definitely not "good Samaritans".

Wow...the stupidity.

Sure they were. They were tracking a criminal whom they recognized from crime scene footage. That is by definition a good samaritan.

Criminal or Violent Criminal? Killing someone without a judge and jury makes one a good Samaritan? Oh...

When someone attacks you, you have the right to self defense. A man trying to take your gun away is a dire threat.

And a man pointing a gun at you is also a dire threat. No gun and there is no death in this case. Don't stop the truck in the middle of the street and act like a cop.

This.

No one would have died if they had not done this.