Why the murderers of Ahmaud Arbery need to be prosecuted

[dannno]

Anybody been paying attention to this??

Sucks it was at the same time as Rittenhouse, I really wanted to pay close attention to this one..

[dannno]

https://apnews.com/article/ahmaud-ar...8522b61e443719


Man who shot Arbery testifies: ‘He had my gun. He struck me’

BRUNSWICK, Ga. (AP) — The man who fatally shot Ahmaud Arbery spoke publicly about the killing for the first time Wednesday, testifying at his murder trial that the 25-year-old Black man forced him to make a split-second “life or death” decision by attacking him and grabbing his shotgun.


“I was thinking of my son,” a teary Travis McMichael told the jury of the moment before he pulled the trigger. “It sounds weird, but that’s the first thing that hit me.”


He was the first witness called as defense attorneys for the three white men charged in Arbery’s death opened their case, building on arguments that their clients were lawfully trying to stop burglaries in their neighborhood and that McMichael opened fire in self-defense.


The Feb. 23, 2020, shooting of Arbery after he was spotted running in the defendants’ neighborhood deepened a national outcry over racial injustice after cellphone video of his death leaked online two months later. The slain man’s family got support not only from civil rights activists, but also from powerful figures including Georgia’s governor and President Joe Biden.


The three men on trial — Travis McMichael; his father, Greg McMichael; and neighbor William “Roddie” Bryan — have had virtually no defenders aside from for their attorneys. Travis McMichael’s testimony marked the most personal and detailed account yet of why the men suspected Arbery of wrongdoing and why McMichael shot him.


“He had my gun,” McMichael, 35, testified. “He struck me. It was obvious that he was attacking me, that if he would have gotten the shotgun from me, then this was a life or death situation, and I’m going to have to stop him from doing this so I shot.”

He said warnings between neighbors and social media chatter about car break-ins and suspicious people had been increasing since 2018 when he moved in with his parents in the Satilla Shores subdivision just outside the port city of Brunswick.


A man building a house five doors down from the McMichaels installed security cameras after items were stolen from a boat in his open garage. Those cameras recorded Arbery inside on four nights and on the day he was killed.


Travis McMichael said he was aware of the theft when he spotted Arbery, whom he didn’t know, “lurking” and “creeping” outside the unfinished home on Feb. 11, 2020. He testified that when he tried to confront the man, Arbery reached for his waistband. McMichael fled and called 911.


“I’m not going to chase or investigate somebody who might be armed,” he testified.


But he did chase the same man 12 days later, after his father came running into the house in “almost a frantic state” and told him “the guy who has been breaking in down the road” had run past their house. Father and son armed themselves and headed out in Travis McMichael’s pickup truck.


They came upon Arbery running, and McMichael said he drove next to him, yelling at Arbery to stop so they could talk. McMichael said that when he told Arbery “police are on the way,” Arbery ran faster — deepening his suspicion of the man.


A Black pickup — driven by Bryan — eventually joined the pursuit. It was Bryan who recorded the shooting on his cellphone.


McMichael had stopped and gotten out of his truck. Bryan’s cellphone video shows Arbery running toward the truck. McMichael is standing with his shotgun by the driver’s side door and his father in the truck bed.


McMichael testified that he pointed his gun at Arbery — saying his intent was to get him to back off — and Arbery then turned and ran around the passenger side.


McMichael said Arbery attacked him immediately: “He’s at the front quarter panel on the right hand side and he turns and is on me. And it is on, in a flash.”


In the video, the truck blocks the view until after the first gunshot is fired. The video then shows both men with hands on the gun as a bleeding Arbery punches McMichael. After the third shot, Arbery turns to run, then falls facedown in the street.


The medical examiner who performed the autopsy said only two of the shotgun blasts hit Arbery, but each struck at close range. One punched a hole in the center of his chest. The other severed an artery near his left armpit and fractured his arm.


Authorities say the McMichaels and Bryan chased Arbery for five minutes before the shooting, using their trucks to cut off Arbery’s escape. Greg McMichael told police they had him “trapped like a rat.” Bryan said he used his truck to run Arbery off the road several times.


Speaking to reporters outside the courthouse, Arbery’s mother, Wanda Cooper-Jones, said: “Mr. Travis McMichael killed my son all on assumptions. He didn’t know where Ahmaud was coming from or what Ahmaud had done. He just took actions into his own hands.”


Bryan’s attorney, Kevin Gough, argued Wednesday that Bryan never intended to harm Arbery and never tried to hide his involvement in the pursuit. He noted that Bryan openly shared his video — the key piece of evidence — with police officers at the scene.


The defense began its case after Superior Court Judge Timothy Walmsley denied a request from defense attorneys to ban prominent civil rights leaders and other high-profile visitors from the courtroom, where seating has been limited because of COVID-19 precautions.


The Rev. Jesse Jackson sat with Arbery’s parents in court for the second time this week. The defendants’ attorneys have said Jackson’s presence and that of others who have spoken in support of convictions could unfairly influence the jury.


The trial is taking place before a disproportionately white jury at the Glynn County courthouse in coastal Georgia.


Arbery, 25, had enrolled at a technical college and was preparing to study to become an electrician like his uncles when he was killed.

[dannno]

I wonder if the OP will come around on this one?

[Invisible Man]

I wonder if the OP will come around on this one?

Why did you put the parts about his being caught on camera in that house in big bold text? Does that have any relevance to the case?

[dannno]

Why did you put the parts about his being caught on camera in that house in big bold text? Does that have any relevance to the case?

Considering it is part of the case, definitely. In fact, his father caught him coming out of there a week before and when he approached him the father ran back to his house because he was unarmed and it looked like Arbery was reaching for a gun. Then they saw him come out of the house that day before they followed him.

That means they had reasonable suspicion to believe he was in commission of a crime, so calling the cops and following him around the neighborhood was completely 100% justified. In fact, even if they didn't see him come out of the house that day, it would have been justified because he had caught him trespassing before.

Even if they merely suspected he had committed a crime, they were fully within their rights to call the police, peacefully approach them to ask them questions, etc.

If Arbery was innocent he could have just walked away, they could have called the cops, followed him and the cops could decide what to do based on the statements of each individual.

This whole idea that you can't call cops on somebody you suspect committed a crime and keep tabs on them until police arrive is nonsense. They never tried to detain him, which actually may have been legally justifiable in this situation, or at least very close to it. However they did much less by simply keeping tabs on him until police arrived.. and he decided to run. He ran faster when they said the police were coming.

If somebody suspects you committed a crime and calls the police, here is a guide on how to handle such a situation:

https://www.quora.com/What-should-be...commit-a-crime

You might notice it does not say "physically attack the other person"

[Invisible Man]

However they did much less by simply keeping tabs on him until police arrived.. and he decided to run. He ran faster when they said the police were coming.

It was his right to run and to run faster when they said the police were coming. Was it not?

And then what did they do after that, which resulted in one of them getting close enough to him with a gun that he was able to grab? How did we get from them following him and keeping tabs on him, followed by him running (which is perfectly legal) to that happening, if, as you say, they never detained him?

[RJB]

I am keeping my mouth shut about this case because I know about as much as the average American and it looks like both the defendants and the deceased committed some questionable actions. I don't mean to stir up things up, but can someone give this lazy bum a summary of how the trial is going? I've been following the Rittenhouse trial instead.

[dannno]

It was his right to run and to run faster when they said the police were coming. Was it not?

Of course it was.. I already said he was well within his rights to walk away. Run away. Bike away. Drive away. However, it was not within his rights to run around the truck, attack the son and grab his weapon. The point is, if he feared the father and son, as opposed to fearing the police, he would have been running just as fast before he heard the police were coming... right?? If he feared the father and son, he would have been happy the police were coming, and would have continued to evade until they got there. Instead he decided to attack them.

And then what did they do after that, which resulted in one of them getting close enough to him with a gun that he was able to grab? How did we get from them following him and keeping tabs on him, followed by him running (which is perfectly legal) to that happening, if, as you say, they never detained him?

Did you not watch the video? Are we having THIS problem again?

The truck was stopped. The father was standing in the bed of the truck, and the son standing next to the truck. Arbery ran TO them, ran around the truck and attacked the son. The son never approached him, except when they were in the truck following him. And when they did get close to him, they certainly did not shoot him, even though they could have. They just said, "hey we want to talk to you". All completely legal.

[dannno]

I am keeping my mouth shut about this case because I know about as much as the average American and it looks like both the defendants and the deceased committed some questionable actions. I don't mean to stir up things up, but can someone give this lazy bum a summary of how the trial is going? I've been following the Rittenhouse trial instead.

The only comment I heard on Rekieta stream was that it was "going pretty well", otherwise I only have msm to go off of.

You could easily know a lot more than the average american. You have a video to watch that shows Arbery running up to the son and attacking him and grabbing his gun. You have video of Arbery several times in the neighbors house trespassing. Most people won't watch the video, they will just be mis-educated about the incident. They think he was "just out jogging" and these guys "hunted him down" and shot him.

This is AS clear self defense as you can get, on par with the Rittenhouse case. Charges never should have been brought - and they wouldn't have been, except that some activists made a stink about it a few months after it happened, so they went back and made the charges.

[Invisible Man]

Of course it was.. I already said he was well within his rights to walk away. Run away. Bike away. Drive away. However, it was not within his rights to run around the truck, attack the son and grab his weapon.




Did you not watch the video? Are we having THIS problem again?

The truck was stopped. The father was standing in the bed of the truck, and the son standing next to the truck. Arbery ran TO them, ran around the truck and attacked the son. The son never approached him, except when they were in the truck following him. And when they did get close to him, they certainly did not shoot him, even though they could have.

In the video I saw, he was being pursued by one vehicle, the one the video was being recorded from, and there was another truck already stopped in front of him blocking his path with someone standing outside it with a long gun.

Is your position that they were allowing him to run past them and get away, and instead of running away when they were supposedly letting him, he chose to run at them and attack the guy with the long gun? Because it looked to me like he was trapped with nowhere to go (i.e. detained).

[dannno]

In the video I saw, he was being pursued by one vehicle, the one the video was being recorded from, and there was another truck already stopped in front of him blocking his path with someone standing outside it with a long gun.

Is your position that they were allowing him to run past them and get away, and instead of running away when they were supposedly letting him, he chose to run at them and attack the guy with the long gun? Because it looked to me like he was trapped with nowhere to go (i.e. detained).

You've gotta be trolling.. the truck wasn't blocking his path. There was the rest of the road that they weren't blocking, since it's a two lane road, plus enough road for parking on each side (that's more than 4 2 car widths), sidewalks, front yards, he had plenty of places to go. He ran around the right side of the truck, he could have easily kept running down the street... when he ran around the right side of the truck, doubled back to the left side where the son was standing, the son did not run toward the right side of the truck to try and block him, he stayed on the left side. Arbery ran to him and attacked him... that's all very clear in the video.

Edit: Re-watched the video, been a while

[Invisible Man]

You've gotta be trolling.. the truck wasn't blocking his path. There was the rest of the road that they weren't blocking, since it's a two lane road, plus enough road for parking on each side (that's more than 4 car widths), sidewalks, front yards, he had plenty of places to go. He ran around the right side of the truck, he could have easily kept running down the street... when he ran around the right side of the truck, doubled back to the left side where the son was standing, the son did not run toward the right side of the truck to try and block him, he stayed on the left side. Arbery ran to him and attacked him... that's all very clear in the video.

And your position is that these men who drove up to get in front of him and stopped their truck in his path, with one of them getting out of the truck with a long gun, while another truck was pursuing him from behind, were just letting him pass?

I'm not saying there was no space for a human body to fit running around the truck. I'm saying it didn't look like a situation where they were going to permit that.

Edit: I just watched the video again, and I don't think you accurately described it. Arbery did initially run around the right side of the truck that was stopped in front of him. It looked like he was trying to continue running past it and away. And at this point the camera is oriented toward Arbery and only shows the right side of the truck, so it's impossible to see what's happening on the left side where the man with the long gun, whom it looked like Arbery was trying to avoid, was. And then when Arbery veers to the left in front of the truck he had just passed, it's clear that that man who had been on the left side was there right in front of the truck. He did not stay on the left side as you claim. He had tried to cross the front of the truck to intercept Arbery. When Arbery veered left it was to meet a man who was already actively moving toward him. Aside from being what the video actually shows, this also makes obvious sense, since, why else was the man with the long gun outside the truck at all? The way it looks is that Arbery, quite reasonably, didn't think he had any way to run away. He had been running for some time being pursued by men in trucks, and now when he's exhausted he's being pursued by a man on foot who just got out of a truck with a long gun. One could argue that he should have just put his hands up and surrendered, possibly allowing them to execute him the way it probably appeared to him they intended to do. But, he instead chose the only other option, which was to try to get the man's gun. Obviously he chose wrong, from the standpoint of one who wants to stay alive. But when that man with the long gun shot him, he can't claim self defense on account of Arbery trying to grab his gun, when he, the man with the gun, was the one who initiated the aggression.

What's clear is that these men weren't just following Arbery to keep tabs on him and asking him nicely to talk without any threat of force being used to compel his cooperation. They pursued him, would not let him get away from them, and threatened him with a gun. And by all appearances, this was in order to detain him, which you claim they didn't do.

[sparebulb]

Am I the only one who is completely disgusted by both parties in this case?

I'm not feeling love for either side.

The only thing I know is that we all lose on this one.

[RJB]

Am I the only one who is completely disgusted by both parties in this case?

I'm not feeling love for either side.

The only thing I know is that we all lose on this one.

That's probably why I haven't really followed it. Everytime I start looking into it, both Ahmaud and those who confronted him turn my stomach. I also don't know who to believe. The video shows a part of it, but not the whole thing. I will leave it in the jury's hands.

[dannno]

threatened him with a gun

Now you sound like the Rittenhouse prosecutor.. simply carrying a gun is not the same as threatening somebody with a gun. They had them for protection, because the father believed he was armed the week before. I would bet $1,000 if some video magically came out from someone in the house that captured the incident a little better, you would not see him pointing his gun at him before he cut hard left and started running toward him. The video seems to indicate the son never went past the center line in the road, which is about where the bumper on the left side of the truck was.

The son moved maybe 2 ft from where he was originally standing, gun pointed down, then the camera goes off course, when it comes back he is still left of the center line, but Arbery has advanced all the way from splitting right to charging straight at him.

They had already had plenty of chances to shoot him if they wanted to from when they engaged him in the truck and told him they just wanted to talk to him. I'm not sure why you would be convinced that Arbery thought they were going to shoot him if they had already had the opportunity to do so and did not. It seems more likely he didn't want to be arrested, and he knew he would have to ditch the people chasing him some how so the cops wouldn't receive updates on his location.

[unknown]

I haven't seen any thread on this other than the one by @enhanced_deficit and it only covers the reactions of Biden and Trump and I could care less what either of them have to say about...well anything.

So here's why they should have been prosecuted from the beginning even without a video and I'm glad they are being prosecuted now. Their "defense" was that they were doing a "citizens arrest." Georgia's citizen's arrest law states the following:

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia...cle-4/17-4-60/
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.

Never did they claim to have witnessed a crime or have had any immediate knowledge of a crime. They just said there were some burglaries in the area. That's it! Only....that wasn't true. No burglaries had recently been reported in their neighborhood. The son's gun had been stolen out of his truck because he had foolishly left the door unlocked. But that doesn't count as a crime committed "in his presence" and there's no evidence so far that he saw who took the gun. Also they are now stuck with there initial argument about burglaries, though I wouldn't be surprised if they now tried to claim they had "seen" Ahmaud or someone who looked like him running away from the son's truck about the time the gun was stolen.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...4be-story.html

Thankfully this time there was a video tape so we don't have to speculate about Ahmaud's final moments.

Not for nothing, I can understand people saying that these boys shouldnt have followed or chased Arbery.

Although I dont see an issue with following someone.

But how does one defend or justify attacking an armed man and trying to wrestle away his firearm...?

[dannno]

Wow.. apparently the police had asked the McMichaels to come to the property armed to help them clear it after Arbery had been there a few days prior. They suspected he was armed.

[Brian4Liberty]

The undercurrent in both this and the Rittenhouse case is that criminals have all the rights, and average people have none.

You have no right to stop someone from stealing or destroying your property, or the property of your friends or neighbors.

You have no right to follow, confront or detain a suspected criminal.

You have no right to defend yourself if a criminal tries to attack you.

Criminals are living humans, thus your property is less important than them. Give them your property if they want it. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. You have no property rights.

[Occam's Banana]

I am keeping my mouth shut about this case because I know about as much as the average American and it looks like both the defendants and the deceased committed some questionable actions. I don't mean to stir up things up, but can someone give this lazy bum a summary of how the trial is going? I've been following the Rittenhouse trial instead.

Nate the Lawyer has a lot of solid coverage of the trial (live streams, commentaries, recaps, etc.).

Here are some of his videos (there are others HERE):

Death of Ahmaud Arbery | Opening Statements
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoMywV1QmeM


Ahmaud Arbery | Trial RECAP Week 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0J7DgpCvBM


Ahmaud Arbery | Closing Arguments | The case goes to the Jury.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9smcT_NiUk

[dannno]

I'm not sure I'm buying into Nate's arguments and views on this completely, we'll see. He is saying that the defense did a good job for most of the trial, until the end when the judge said that you can pursue an escaping person for felon burglary for citizens arrest, but that right extinguishes after that.. after what..they get away? I don't think that part is entirely clear, and I think the judge kind of put words into the law. At least that was my impression.

So Nate says if you see them again later on, you can't execute the citizen's arrest because you don't know if they were arrested and set out on bail, or if the police found them looked into it and let them go, etc, etc.. therefore he claims the entire argument the defense built fell to pieces, because they were using the felony burglary from 11 days prior and that simply being on the property that day is only a misdemeanor (I disagree, will explain in a second)

To me if somebody escapes, it seems to me they are still escaping the law until they are arrested.. so when does this right extinguish exactly?

The defense is however taking my approach that I outlined on this thread or another one long ago, arguing that someone who goes onto the property with the intent to burglarize it is committing felony burglary - so if they had reasonable suspicion he went on the property to commit felony burglary, then they would be in the clear. I think when you look at the totality of the evidence, a reasonable person would say they had probable cause and reasonable suspicion. They saw him running away - the neighbor got him on video coming out of the home and pointed down the street to inform the McMichaels he was running away from the crime scene. A person might say, at this point, that they didn't have direct evidence, but I think when you look at the totality of circumstances a reasonable person would say that they did.

I don't think they are going to get a conviction on this. This very well may go to hung jury, because you may have some jurors who will refuse to not follow what they have been told is the letter of the law, whereas I am pretty sure you are going to have a lot of people on that jury who agreed that what they did was not only reasonable, but something they want to see more of in their own communities with all of the rising crime.

The defenses' closing arguments were very good. They outlined everything that happened and showed that these men had more than probable cause, and were really at the point where they could be 99.9% certain about what was going on based on everything they had been through. Nate claims the defense is going for nullification, but based on how the law is written I don't know if I would go so far as to call it that, but even if that is the case I can certainly see it happening here.

[dannno]

BTW, funniest joke in the comments on the livestream so far.. the defense attorney brought up that Arbery wasn't wearing socks, and he had long, dirty toe nails... the lawyers were like "wtf, why are you bringing that up??" then somebody in the comments says, "If the toe nails are not clipped, you must acquit!"

But seriously, I think that evidence was initially brought up to help show that he was not a jogger... a jogger would presumably have socks, jogging shoes and trimmed toe nails.

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/NatetheLawyer/st...60599219023875

[jmdrake]

The undercurrent in both this and the Rittenhouse case is that criminals have all the rights, and average people have none.

You have no right to stop someone from stealing or destroying your property, or the property of your friends or neighbors.

You have no right to follow, confront or detain a suspected criminal.

You have no right to defend yourself if a criminal tries to attack you.

Criminals are living humans, thus your property is less important than them. Give them your property if they want it. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. You have no property rights.

Oh bullshyt! It's never been proven that Arbery was a criminal. And regardless, even Kyle Rittenhouse said on the fvcking stand that he understood he didn't have the right to use deadly force to protect property. I was all for Kyles acquittal. That was self defense pure and simple. And the first guy Kyle shot was a multiple pedophile who had set fire to a dumpster and was pushing it to a gas station. The real takeaway from the Arbery case is don't go jogging without a gun. Arbery should have been armed and shot those two MFs so that he could be on trial and they could be in the ground. This forum is just retarded sometimes.

[jmdrake]

Not for nothing, I can understand people saying that these boys shouldnt have followed or chased Arbery.

Although I dont see an issue with following someone.

But how does one defend of justify attacking an armed man and trying to wrestle away his firearm...?

Simple. If you think you're going to die anyway, attempting to wrestle away a firearm makes perfect sense. Example, the unarmed black man who disarmed the Waffle House shooter in Nashville TN.



Here's another example. A Nashville pastor who tackled an armed man who was approaching his pulpit and other members of the congregation wreslted away the gun.

https://www.wxyz.com/news/national/t...t-parishioners

I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find plenty of other examples of good citizens who are unarmed who wrestle guns away from killers. In the case of Arbery the defendants had pursued him for an extended period of time and one of them even bumped into him with his truck. If Arbery thought he was going to end up like Emmit Till if he submitted to the McMichaels, and based on the circumstances that was not unreasonable for him to think, then going for the gun made perfect sense. And if he hadn't taken his right hand off the gun to punch his assailant he might have been successful.

[jmdrake]

I wonder if the OP will come around on this one?

Fvck no. Here's what you did NOT highlight.

McMichael testified that he pointed his gun at Arbery — saying his intent was to get him to back off — and Arbery then turned and ran around the passenger side.


So McMichael DID brandish his gun at Arbery. What's that all y'all had to say about Alec Baldwin? Don't point a gun at someone unless you intend to kill them? So McMichael brandished his gun at Arbery putting Arbery in reasonable fear of his life. If Arbery had been armed and shot McMichael that would have been self defense. I haven't read the statute, but if Kyle Rittenhouse and his buddies had chased Rosenberg down and Kyle had pointed his gun at Rosenberg before Rosenberg tried to take his gun, Kyle would be a convicted felon right now. That's Wisconsin law, not Georgia law, but I agree with the Wisconsin law from a moral standpoint.

Edit: I went back and read the code. The McMicheals had no right to point a gun at Arbery and the neigbor helping them had no right to strike him with his truck. Even police officers don't have a general right to use deadly force to apprehend a suspect.

(b) Sheriffs and peace officers who are appointed or employed in conformity with Chapter 8 of Title 35 may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others; or when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. Nothing in this Code section shall be construed so as to restrict such sheriffs or peace officers from the use of such reasonable nondeadly force as may be necessary to apprehend and arrest a suspected felon or misdemeanant.

Using the RPF "standard" that's been applied to Alec Baldwin, pointing a gun at someone = intent to kill him. The McMichaels had no reason to believe Arbery was armed and when one of them pointed a gun at him and when their friend tried to run him over with his truck, Arbery hadn't done anything violent. Arbery only grabbed the gun in self defense.

[Invisible Man]

You have no right to follow, confront or detain a suspected criminal.

Do you disagree with this? Do you think that you do have a right to detain someone for no more of an excuse than that you suspect that they committed a crime without respect for what your reasons are for that suspicion or what crime you suspect it was?

[Invisible Man]

Oh bullshyt! It's never been proven that Arbery was a criminal.

If it was proven that he was a criminal, would that change anything?

I don't see how it would, unless it was the case that he had just committed a crime, and the guys who shot him caught him in the criminal act itself.

[Invisible Man]

But how does one defend of justify attacking an armed man and trying to wrestle away his firearm...?

You are cornered by an armed man pointing a gun at you. You try to flee, and he doesn't let you. You run until you're spent. You're on foot, and he has a truck and buddies in another truck. Now you're facing the man pointing the gun at you. What are your choices?

Yes, obviously you can surrender and hope that all he wants to do is detain you until police arrive. But you have no assurance of this. You have reasonable fear that you will be executed on the spot, based on what has already transpired up to that point. Your only other choice is to take your chances with fighting for your life, knowing that you will likely get killed in the process.

I don't think I would have chosen to fight. But I can't say that he was wrong to do it. In any case, what I can say clearly is that he was not the aggressor. He was the one trying to get away, who was pursued by the guy with the gun. You cannot be the aggressor, who pursues another person in order to kill or unlawfully detain them, while that other person tries to flee, and then claim self defense when they resort to fighting back and you shoot them. If you don't want to be a murderer, then when they try to flee, you let them.

[jmdrake]

Do you disagree with this? Do you think that you do have a right to detain someone for no more of an excuse than that you suspect that they committed a crime without respect for what your reasons are for that suspicion or what crime you suspect it was?

Yeah....except they did far more than just "follow, confront or detain" Arbery. One of them admittedly pointed a gun at Arbery BEFORE Arbery tried to grab the gun in order to get him to "back off." Really? You're been chasing someone down, your buddy, that struck him with his truck, is following behind and you claim you need him to "back off" as if HE is the aggressor? That's what @Brian4Liberty left out. The McMichaels and their buddy put Arbery in reasonable fear of his life, not just fear of arrest, and then when Arbery defended himself they shot him. This is miles appart from Kyle Rittenhouse who was trying to get away from Rosenberg.

Personal recent story. As we were leaving our house we heard a shot. Three white men had just killed a deer. We don't allow hunting on our property. They were right on the side of the road so I suppose one could argue it was "public property" but I'm pretty sure it dosn't work that way. Even if it did, they were not in hunting season. (They were during the time when bucks could be hunted, but only with air rifles and muzzle loaders.) The deer was a doe. (Full grown with no antlers). As I drove passed I rolled down my window and said "You know you're hunting illegally right?" To which the oldest man responded "It was hit and I just finished it off." The doe's legs were still kicking so that was a poor job of "finishing off" a deer. I was unarmed. But even if I was, would it have been worth chasisng these guys down and potentially getting into a gunfight? Over a deer? Oh but they "broke the law." Yep. They sure did.

[TheTexan]

Oh no doubt. But there is the other way to spin the same story.



Anyhow we'll see what happens at trial. No doubt everyone will be pissed when it's all over no matter what happens.

I lost him when he said the solution to this mess is "call the police" to let them handle it.

If it matters to you... take care of it yourself. If it doesn't matter to you... let the "jogger" do his thing.

But "call the police".... nope.