« First « Previous Comments 7 - 42 of 42 Search these comments
ran towards a guy with a gun and tried to grab it.
Yes - Arbery was "fleeing" and so what? The opposite was the case with Rittenhouse - he was "chased down" by the thugs.
The defendants escalated the situation when they could have just followed, and called the police.
Could be Arbery just sees three white guys trying to chase him down for some unknown reason - which likely means there is no reason at all. Of course he is going to try and get away. I know ...I know - from the last thread on this people say that you just stop and do nothing when some people confront you with a gun. But I wouldn't trust anyone pointing a gun at me and if I thought I could get it and get away, I certainly would. Especially with how lazily the defendant handled the situation.
It was clear that they had only some vague suspicion to arrest him - and even then the key point was that the police on the scene said that the defendants had NOT claimed they were making a citizen arrest. That was something they claimed after - so that was...
Arbery did the same thing Rosenbaum did - ran towards a guy with a gun and tried to grab it. The only difference here is the melanin level.
The jury was clearly intimidated into the decision they made
Even if Arbery had robbed every house on that street and was still carrying all of the shit that is not an offense that deserves death. As it was I don't think he robbed anything on that particular day.
Jogging.
Trying to get away.
ChauvinsKnee saysArbery did the same thing Rosenbaum did - ran towards a guy with a gun and tried to grab it. The only difference here is the melanin level.
The jury was clearly intimidated into the decision they made
This is completely wrong
Rittenhouse didn’t chase Rosenbaum in the back of a pickup truck with shotguns.
Very different situation. Jury is 2/2 when it comes to the two cases.
Rittenhouse didn’t chase Rosenbaum in the back of a pickup truck with shotguns.
BayArea saysRittenhouse didn’t chase Rosenbaum in the back of a pickup truck with shotguns.
No he did not. It is quite a different scenario indeed.
But @BayArea are you suggesting that if a person or persons are following you in a pickup truck, carrying a shotgun and pistol you have the right to violently attempt to disarm them and they have no right to defend themselves?
BayArea saysRittenhouse didn’t chase Rosenbaum in the back of a pickup truck with shotguns.
No he did not. It is quite a different scenario indeed.
But @BayArea are you suggesting that if a person or persons are following you in a pickup truck, carrying a shotgun and pistol you have the right to violently attempt to disarm them and they have no right to defend themselves?
BayArea saysRittenhouse didn’t chase Rosenbaum in the back of a pickup truck with shotguns.
No he did not. It is quite a different scenario indeed.
But @BayArea are you suggesting that if a person or persons are following you in a pickup truck, carrying a shotgun and pistol you have the right to violently attempt to disarm them and they have no right to defend themselves?
If the jury is correct, then please cite the statute(s) violated. It does seem unwise for a civilian to jump into a car, armed and chase down a possible suspect. I would not recommend it. But what laws did they violate? Would you suggest that just because they are armed and in pursuit they forfeit the right to self defense? Do suggest that the deceased was justified in attempting to take another person’s weapon?
If a civilian is in armed pursuit but not actively using (pointing or firing) a weapon does that make them guilty of attempting murder? If the deceased had not attacked the man with the shotgun and instead sat on the curb and waited to talk to the police, would that have been the nonviolent and safe, sane, civil response to the pursuit? Is not the deceased responsible for the violence he committed?
2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 3 - DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS
ARTICLE 2 - JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE
§ 16-3-21 - Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution
O.C.G.A. 16-3-21 (2010)
16-3-21. Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution
(a) 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; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, 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 or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(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.
(c) Any rule, regulation, or policy of any agency of the state or any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, or policy of any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state which is in conflict with this Code section shall be null, void, and of no force and effect.
(d) In a prosecution for murder or manslaughter, if a defendant raises as a defense a justification provided by subsection (a) of this Code section, the defendant, in order to establish the defendant's reasonable belief that the use of force or deadly force was immediately necessary, may be permitted to offer:
(1) Relevant evidence that the defendant had been the victim of acts of family violence or child abuse committed by the deceased, as such acts are described in Code Sections 19-13-1 and 19-15-1, respectively; and
(2) Relevant expert testimony regarding the condition of the mind of the defendant at the time of the offense, including those relevant facts and circumstances relating to the family violence or child abuse that are the bases of the expert's opinion
This is an example of how open carry laws can backfire on moronic rednecks who think it’s there right to point guns at people whenever they feel like it. Now they get to spend a long time in prison because of what those laws and their own stupidity enabled.
Where do you get the idea that he was shot due to theft, or a belief that he stole?
If armed rednecks in the back of a truck are pursuing and engaging me, it’s not unreasonable for me to be concerned for my life.
The men in the truck should not have been armed. Deadly force is not allowed for property theft. They did not need guns - there were two of them. Arbrey was not a George Floyd sized NFL linebacker. If confrontation is what they were after they should have done it the old school way. Having guns just makes them bullies, and bullies are generally cowards.
I am sorry - then you are saying if someone totally crazy comes up to you with a gun and points it at you (which the defendants did()
I am sorry - then you are saying if someone totally crazy comes up to you with a gun and points it at you (which the defendants did() you are saying you will just "sit there" and get shot - even if you believe you can "take them"? Really? You really trust someone armed chasing you to that extent?
Yes. He runs around a car and is confronted by a crazy and a gun.
krc saysYes. He runs around a car and is confronted by a crazy and a gun.
Just so were clear - the instance where "he pointed a gun at arbery" was when arbery was running straight at him for 30-50 feet, while the defendant was standing still, yelling "stop right there", but arbery kept on running right at him, and when he got so close he was just a few feet away, he then pointed the gun at him in order to shoot the crazy man running right at him - that's the instance of "pointing a gun" you're talking about?
Arbery was clearly mounting an attack before the gun was pointed. The gun was pointed in order to shoot him.
Arbery closed at least 30-50 feet, running right at him, while the defendant stood there. Arbery attacked him. Arbery had a lot of opportunity to run / walk away (or stand there and do nothing), but he instead decided to attack a man with a gun, with disastrous ...
Whatever - both the Rittenhouse and this case were clear and obvious and the justice system is 2-0. You can provoke an attack all you want - that doesn't give you the right of self defense when you are carrying a gun. That is settled law and has been for decades.
"Provoked" is bullshit.
Those arguing the verdict was wrong aren’t actually saying the Jurors applied the law incorrectly. They are actually arguing that the law is wrong and the jurors should have engaged in nullification.
Hircus sayskrc saysYes. He runs around a car and is confronted by a crazy and a gun.
Just so were clear - the instance where "he pointed a gun at arbery" was when arbery was running straight at him for 30-50 feet, while the defendant was standing still, yelling "stop right there", but arbery kept on running right at him, and when he got so close he was just a few feet away, he then pointed the gun at him in order to shoot the crazy man running right at him - that's the instance of "pointing a gun" you're talking about?
Arbery was clearly mounting an attack before the gun was pointed. The gun was pointed in order to shoot him.
Arbery closed at least 30-50 feet, running right at him, while the defendant stood there. Arbery attacked him. Arbery had a lot of opportunity to run / walk away (or stand there a...
As did the murderers.
But none of that is really the point as you just took a specific incident for which there is ample evidence and turned it into a massive generalization.
FuckTheMainstreamMedia saysThose arguing the verdict was wrong aren’t actually saying the Jurors applied the law incorrectly. They are actually arguing that the law is wrong and the jurors should have engaged in nullification.
I would argue the law has to be changed. Remember, jury nullification was used extensively to absolve people from murder in the 1950's when the victim was black.
You really want to go back down that road again? I don't.
How would you change the law? It seems to me that loosening up the law opens the door to vigilante justice including murder for low level crimes and even instances where crime is only suspected.
« First « Previous Comments 7 - 42 of 42 Search these comments
https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/ahmaud-arbery-trial-jury-deliberations-wednesday
Does anyone know what arguments they used to convict them? I didn't pay much attention to this trial, and didn't expect this verdict.
While I think the outcome of Arbery getting shot and killed was unfortunate and sad that things turned out that way, I felt like it was clear self defense. I feel this way because I think when a person is brandishing a weapon, if someone is crazy enough to attack them, they should shoot, or else they risk their weapon being taken from them and used against them.
I might feel differently if Arbery was cornered, making Arbery feel like he had to attack or he would surely die from inaction, but the video I saw didn't show the man with a gun advancing on him, nor even pointing the gun.