Ahmaud Arbery

pjohnson

Tasfasdf wrote: »

But he was 100% a criminal

Ulike the redneck Batman he wasnt an overweight lazy murdering waste of skin

weldoninhio

Overheal wrote: »

That’s why it’s called Fight or Flight.

Flight had already been exhausted as an option for the prior 4 minutes. Then there’s an escalation where the rednecks wear you down enough to hop out and brandish shotguns at you.

What do you do? Your only options are to defend yourself, flee, or surrender, with the latter two options being historically perilous for black Americans in the state of Georgia.

It's actually now called Fight, Flight or Freeze.

2u2me

Tasfasdf wrote: »

But he was 100% a criminal

Doesn't mean every criminal deserves to die surely or is better off dead.

I've read of many in the US that plead guilty because it's a far easier path then protesting your innocence it's also a police state.

Have you seen "The Life of David Gale"?

When you kill someone, you rob their family - not just of a loved one, but of their humanity. You harden their hearts with hate, you take away their capacity for civilized dispassion, you condemn them to bloodlust. It's a cruel and horrible thing, but indulging that hate will *never* help. The damage is done, and once we've had our pound of flesh, we're still hungry. We leave the death house muttering that lethal injection was just too good for them. In the end, a civilized society must live with a hard truth: he who seeks revenge digs two graves.

Hrududu

Its depressing to watch people fall over themselves to justify this. It doesn't matter if he was a criminal, or he was a burglar. Even in the US burglary doesn't have the death sentence.

joe40

Tasfasdf wrote: »

But he was 100% a criminal

That doesn't justify been shot by two civilians.
America has a police force and a legal system. I do believe some would like a return to lynching.

silverharp

Hrududu wrote: »

Its depressing to watch people fall over themselves to justify this. It doesn't matter if he was a criminal, or he was a burglar. Even in the US burglary doesn't have the death sentence.

Im sure everyone is aware of that, its not legal or moral to shoot someone for stealing "a loaf of bread". It will be up to the courts to decide if the guy tried to take the gun off the guy in the vehicle as that would introduce self defense.

osarusan

silverharp wrote: »

It will be up to the courts to decide if the guy tried to take the gun off the guy in the vehicle as that would introduce self defense.

That will surely hinge on whether they had the right to initiate a citizen's arrest or not in the first place. Otherwise, they are just two armed men confronting an unarmed man.

If I try to mug somebody at gunpoint, and they try (but fail) to wrestle the gun away from me, do I now have the right to shoot them in self-defence?

EDIT: Here's a piece on Georgia's self-defence laws:

Under Georgia's law, people who believe their life or property is being threatened don't have to retreat and can use deadly force if they think it's necessary to prevent their own death or "great bodily injury" to themselves or other people or to prevent a "forcible felony," such as rape.

But there are also exceptions when lethal force wouldn't be justified — if the person who used deadly force:

• Was the aggressor and didn't try to withdraw from the situation.
• Initially provoked the other person intending to use force as an excuse to inflict harm.
• Was engaged in criminal activity at the time.

"The key thing here is you cannot have instigated the incident and then say you had to kill the other person because you're defending yourself," said James Yancey Jr., a defense lawyer in Brunswick.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/was-pursuit-killing-ahmaud-arbery-perfectly-legal-it-s-not-n1205581

They clearly were the agressors, and if they didn't have legitimate reason for their attempted arrest, were engaged in criminal activity at the time.

Hrududu

osarusan wrote: »

If I try to mug somebody at gunpoint, and they try (but fail) to wrestle the gun away from me, do I now have the right to shoot them in self-defence?

Isn't this almost the case with the guy who shot Trayvon Martin. He followed him with a gun, and when Martin fought with him he shot him. Then claimed the Stand your Ground defense.

osarusan

Hrududu wrote: »

Isn't this almost the case with the guy who shot Trayvon Martin. He followed him with a gun, and when Martin fought with him he shot him. Then claimed the Stand your Ground defense.

One difference is that Zimmerman testified that after following Martin for a while, he then stopped following him and was going back to his vehicle when Martin then attacked him.


That isn't the case here.

silverharp

osarusan wrote: »

That will surely hinge on whether they had the right to initiate a citizen's arrest or not in the first place. Otherwise, they are just two armed men confronting an unarmed man.

If I try to mug somebody at gunpoint, and they try (but fail) to wrestle the gun away from me, do I now have the right to shoot them in self-defence?

EDIT: Here's a piece on Georgia's self-defence laws:


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/was-pursuit-killing-ahmaud-arbery-perfectly-legal-it-s-not-n1205581

They clearly were the agressors, and if they didn't have legitimate reason for their attempted arrest, were engaged in criminal activity at the time.

well that's a given , when I heard about this case first I was assured it was about some white guys hunting a random black guy for fun. Its clearly not that, so lets hope the they justice is had whatever way it turns out.

2u2me

silverharp wrote: »

well that's a given , when I heard about this case first I was assured it was about some white guys hunting a random black guy for fun. Its clearly not that, so lets hope the they justice is had whatever way it turns out.

That is just as important in this case. How the media can spin a narrative. It clearly isn't a racist witch hunt many are making it out to be, but it's still a horrible set of circumstances that shouldn't be allowed to happen again.

blinding

The McMichaels are guilty of being Good Neighbours, guilty of being Community Minded, guilty of having impeccable records re; Law enforcement. Two guys doing their best for their community.

suicide_circus

one black man is murdered per day in the south side of Chicago

ohnonotgmail

blinding wrote: »

America is not Ireland.

you are absolutely right. if this was ireland they would almost certanly be convicted of murder. as it is america the two armed white men who confronted an unarmed black man and murdered him might get away with it.

ELM327

I don't believe the shooter is guilty of murder having reviewed the footage and notes available.
As noted, GA is a concealed carry state, meaning that the mcmichaels were entitled to carry their legally held weapon.
If I'm out for a jog, I dont go scouting out abandoned property for tools to steal.

ohnonotgmail

ELM327 wrote: »

I don't believe the shooter is guilty of murder having reviewed the footage and notes available.
As noted, GA is a concealed carry state, meaning that the mcmichaels were entitled to carry their legally held weapon.
If I'm out for a jog, I dont go scouting out abandoned property for tools to steal.

nobody has doubted that they were carrying legally. the issue is the shooting of an unarmed black man.

joe40

blinding wrote: »

The McMichaels are guilty of being Good Neighbours, guilty of being Community Minded, guilty of having impeccable records re; Law enforcement. Two guys doing their best for their community.

They shot an unarmed man, I certainly wouldn't want them as neighbours.

Guy:Incognito

banie01 wrote: »

Who stores $2,500 worth of fishing gear on an unsecured construction site, has it stolen and doesn't report the theft?
.

I dont think theres any indication the fishing gear he says was stolen, was stolen from the building site. Its just a generic "someone stole my stuff once" and then "well this guy was on my property at some stage in the days/weeks after" not even saying it was the same property.

Gatling

blinding wrote: »

The McMichaels are guilty of being Good Neighbours, guilty of being Community Minded, guilty of having impeccable records re; Law enforcement. Two guys doing their best for their community.

By chasing down an unarmed black man and gunning him down for what nothing really he walked through a house under construction and not in any way secured ,
The same house where kids were playing and white people walked through also ,but the fat excop couldn't find any of them ......



" yay go team KKK"

joe40

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I dont think theres any indication the fishing gear he says was stolen, was stolen from the building site. Its just a generic "someone stole my stuff once" and then "well this guy was on my property at some stage in the days/weeks after" not even saying it was the same property.

They're clutching at straws in order to defend the indefensible.

Guy:Incognito

ELM327 wrote: »

I don't believe the shooter is guilty of murder having reviewed the footage and notes available.
As noted, GA is a concealed carry state, meaning that the mcmichaels were entitled to carry their legally held weapon.
If I'm out for a jog, I dont go scouting out abandoned property for tools to steal.

No one has said anything about their rights to carry guns.

The issue is jumping in your cars and chasing a guy up and down a road for a few minutes and then killing him.

Im not seeing anything in the video so suggest he was carrying any tools or anything they reckon he might have stolen even? So at best they chased him and confronted him with guns because they figured he went on to a building site. Seems a reasonable response......

ELM327

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

nobody has doubted that they were carrying legally. the issue is the shooting of an unarmed black man.

Then the question is was there legal basis.
If they were trying to make a citizens arrest and were attacked by Arbery then I would suspect they were covered under "stand your ground"

MeMen2_MoRi_

The McMichaels and the other truck could of easily followed him all the while on the phone to the dispatch, giving them direction to where he was going. They choose to be confrontational because they were safe in the knowledge of being armed.

ohnonotgmail

ELM327 wrote: »

Then the question is was there legal basis.
If they were trying to make a citizens arrest and were attacked by Arbery then I would suspect they were covered under "stand your ground"

they initiated the confrontation so cannot claim self defence. this has been discussed already.

Citizens arrest only applies if they see somebody commit a crime. did they see him commit a crime? i dont belive they did. they told police that he resembled somebody suspected of a crime. not the same thing.

raze_them_all_

In Ireland it's murder in America its just another day

RollieFingers

If you thought of a stereotypical racist redneck it would be the younger of these two murderers, the state of him!

ELM327

ELM327 wrote: »

Then the question is was there legal basis.
If they were trying to make a citizens arrest and were attacked by Arbery then I would suspect they were covered under "stand your ground"

Use of reasonable force is a major part of any citizen's arrest.

Their 'stand your ground' defence will be laughed out of court.

degsie

This has all the hallmarks of a hate crime. No doubt that a plea deal will see a light sentence, if any.

pjohnson

blinding wrote: »

The McMichaels are guilty of being Good Neighbours, guilty of being Community Minded, guilty of having impeccable records re; Law enforcement. Two guys doing their best for their community.

Big Daddy did not have an impeccable record he was repeatedly too lazy to do the basic training and had numerous suspensions because of this.

CrabRevolution

ELM327 wrote: »

Then the question is was there legal basis.
If they were trying to make a citizens arrest and were attacked by Arbery then I would suspect they were covered under "stand your ground"

If that were the case, all you'd ever have to do to justify murdering someone is claim you were performing a citizens arrest and they weren't cooperating.

As has been pointed out numerous times on this thread, you can't claim self defence/stand your ground/whatever if you were the one who initiated the confrontation.

It reminds me of Jimbo in South Park, where his loophole to get around hunting laws was to shout "it's coming right for us!" before shooting the hapless animal minding it's own business a distance away.