Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.

[oxmixmudd]

interesting.

So suppose Arbery got the gun instead of what actually happened. They are the aggressors, but if he puts the gun down, they are coming after him. The Father still has a gun. But you are saying if he points the gun at the son, then the father can justly kill him. And if he points it at the man with the gun, the sun can then justly attack him again. So how does he get any sort of justice in this situation? It sounds like once they initiated the aggression with guns, 2 on one, he was either going to either be killed or arrested and charged for murder or manslaughter or some lessor assault. The only just outcome would have been very unlikely, because neither of those seeking to arrest him is going to just let him hold the other at bay once he has the gun.

In fact, it does seem the only way he could get justice would be to die. Because being killed w/o cause is the only way for them to be prosecuted.

That just doesn't seem right at all. Once these two decided to chase him down with guns, this guy was either going to lose his life or go to jail no matter what. How can that be true?

[rogue06]

Bumping this question.

I think that a lot depends on whether or not they were identifying themselves in some way as having been authorized in a manner by the police^[1] or were they just shouting "Citizens arrest! Citizens arrest!" like Gomer Pyle on the old Andy Griffith show

1. referring to the text that the owner of the property that was having stuff stolen from got from the police to telling him to contact Gregory McMichael if anyone was stealing anything.

[Mountain Man]

There's actually an interesting question here. If three guys in two vans have been pursuing you, and one of them drives up ahead of you and cuts you off and someone steps out of it with a shotgun in a threatening manner. Do you have the right to self-defense in that moment?

I have heard nothing to suggest that the McMichaels broke any laws by confronting Arbery, but I don't know for certain. It's why I think the case is ultimately going to come down to when the decision was made to pull the trigger.

[Leonhard]

I have heard nothing to suggest that the McMichaels broke any laws by confronting Arbery, but I don't know for certain. It's why I think the case is ultimately going to come down to when the decision was made to pull the trigger.

You didn't answer the question. I'm not asking it to trip you or anyone else up. I'm puzzled by it myself. It doesn't look like how I imagine a self-defense situation working.

[Mountain Man]

...[Trump] continues his relentless attacks on the character and legacy of our first Black president - for no other reason than the fact he is ... our first Black President.

You're right... it has nothing to do with any of the underhanded things Obama did during and after the election.

[Mountain Man]

You didn't answer the question. I'm not asking it to trip you or anyone else up. I'm puzzled by it myself. It doesn't look like how I imagine a self-defense situation working.

I did answer. I think that unless it is proven that the McMichaels broke the law either prior to or during the confrontation then it has a good chance of being a case of self-defense.

[Watermelon]

interesting.

So suppose Arbery got the gun instead of what actually happened. They are the aggressors, but if he puts the gun down, they are coming after him. The Father still has a gun. But you are saying if he points the gun at the son, then the father can justly kill him. And if he points it at the man with the gun, the sun can then justly attack him again. So how does he get any sort of justice in this situation? It sounds like once they initiated the aggression with guns, 2 on one, he was either going to either be killed or arrested and charged for murder or manslaughter or some lessor assault. The only just outcome would have been very unlikely, because neither of those seeking to arrest him is going to just let him hold the other at bay once he has the gun.

In fact, it does seem the only way he could get justice would be to die. Because being killed w/o cause is the only way for them to be prosecuted.

That just doesn't seem right at all. Once these two decided to chase him down with guns, this guy was either going to lose his life or go to jail no matter what. How can that be true?

[JimL]

I think that a lot depends on whether or not they were identifying themselves in some way as having been authorized in a manner by the police^[1] or were they just shouting "Citizens arrest! Citizens arrest!" like Gomer Pyle on the old Andy Griffith show

According to their own testimony they just shouted for him to stop and said we want to talk to you.

1. referring to the text that the owner of the property that was having stuff stolen from got from the police to telling him to contact Gregory McMichael if anyone was stealing anything.

Not that it would matter, but the owner said he never spoke to the McMichaels about it.

[Watermelon]

I did answer. I think that unless it is proven that the McMichaels broke the law either prior to or during the confrontation then it has a good chance of being a case of self-defense.

[oxmixmudd]

That makes more sense.

Thanks

[Mountain Man]

Um, yeah, and if their actions broke no laws, that makes for a strong case in their favor.

[oxmixmudd]

Um, yeah, and if their actions broke no laws, that makes for a strong case in their favor.

Murder is against the law. Manslaughter is against the law. Pursuit of an unarmed man who has not committed a felony is illegal in Georgia.

Laws were broken MM. It's just a matter of which ones and to what degree.

[Mountain Man]

Pursuit of an unarmed man who has not committed a felony is illegal in Georgia.

I've been wondering about this. What's the actual law? Do you have a source? Because if that's true then any claim of self-defense goes out the window.

[Watermelon]

Um, yeah, and if their actions broke no laws, that makes for a strong case in their favor.

[rogue06]

I know - isn't it horrible that I view racism in america as bad, and that I'm willing to speak out against the continued legacy of slavery and the oppression of black people in our country even in the midst of a resurgence of white supremacy and the like at the encouragement of our current president? Even as he continues his relentless attacks on the character and legacy of our first Black president - for no other reason than the fact he is ... our first Black President.

Riiiiiight. It had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with his horrible policies and Executive Orders.

Using this logic the only reason that Obama constantly trashed his predecessors is because he was white. Or from Texas -- which is more understandable.