patrick.net

Tenpoundbass says

I would rather see legislation on hard rules where the use of a weapon is lawful, and when it isn't.

Thats exactly what citizens arrest laws do. Personal knowledge of a felony is the line in Georgia.

I expect this courtcase to argue whether these two had that personal knowledge and if Arbery's behavior constitutes felonious behavior.

Tenpoundbass says

I would rather see legislation on hard rules where the use of a weapon is lawful, and when it isn't.

In other words, voicing support for “common sense gun laws.” Guess we know the truth now.

Tenpoundbass says

Quit defending them,

Will quit defending them when someone can tell me what law they broke! Till then I will ask anyone who loves liberty to quit blaming the victims for being attacked!!

NoCoupForYou says

It's not a case of McMichaels walking up to Arbery and pointing a firearm directly at him.

Also, no lib has explained why good boy Arbery has a prior gun conviction.

You would have to evaluate the circumstance as far as was the shooter in fear of his life. Think of our favorite neighborhood security watchman George Zimmerman. He was tackled and in a fight when the gun went off. Zimmerman did not shoot Trayvon Martin when Trayvon was running away.

That is what needs to be evaluated as far as whether a legal gun owner committed murder or not. Did they shoot Arbery in the back ? And how many times ?

ad says

That is what needs to be evaluated as far as whether a legal gun owner committed murder or not. Did they shoot Arbery in the back ? And how many times ?

Exactly. Fortunately, we have the video, which shows Arbery running at the truck, then around it, and then quickly pivoting left to attack younger McMichaels, delivering a few hooks and trying to grab the shotgun.

Other than asking him to stop and stopping the truck in front of him, the McMichaels did not run down and pursue Arbery further, nor did the shoot him from inside a vehicle or other situation where it was unnecessary and overly aggressive. In the beginning of the video, when Arbery begins charging, the shotgun is not being pointed at McMichaels.

Under Georgia law, the McMichaels were correct in conducting a citizen's arrest, and, quite aside from that, justified in self defense for shooting him. I believe on past precedence, trying to grab somebody's legal firearm, always constitutes justified self-defense.

If armed men in two pickup trucks started following you on a neighborhood street and tried to block your path multiple times what would you do, honestly?! In the video just before shooting occurred, Arbery is penned in with Roddie's (the one shooting the video) truck behind him and the McMichaels truck ahead of him and then the younger McMichaels jumps out of the driver's seat brandishing a shotgun. Also, I think it has to be a felony for a citizens arrest to be legally allowed in Georgia and merely walking onto someone's unsecured property isn't a felony, so that alone would make the McMichaels actions illegal.

If a jury, after hearing ALL of the facts, finds that the McMichaels had a reasonable and probable suspicion of burglary, or any felony, then the citizens' arrest was valid. But to say there is ZERO evidence of burglary, is simply not true. Simply running from the police is sufficient to justify a law enforcement detention. In this case, it is clear that when he was confronted by a neighbor, the departed ran out of the house and down the street. That is evidence, but not proof of wrongdoing.

Some people are quick to convict white people even with video evidence. Btw, what exactly is a citizens arrest supposed to look like? I didn't get my manual.

astronut97 says

merely walking onto someone's unsecured property isn't a felony

He could have committed a felony when inside the home. The attitude that it's fine to just walk into a home under construction is still mind blowing to me. There are arsonist out there, people that just like breaking shit or say flooding the basement by turning the water on and letting it fuck things up.

I assisted/worked with builders in Chicago for 13 years. This owner/builder is a unicorn by saying he didn't care Arbery was in the property. His stance is likely a lie as he doesn't want to get sued because a black man was shot after entering his property. He's likely the one that told neighbors to keep an eye on the place. He doesn't want to be associated with Arbery's death at all and become an accessory to murder (there wasn't in this case), so he's lying.

So yes they legally confronted Arbery after he illegally entered a home. Yes, it's perfectly legal to believe a crime was committed. Yes the use of a vehicle was aggressive. Yes they had guns legally drawn. Yes he attacked them. Yes he died. Nothing would have happened at all if Arbery didn't enter the home. And sure, it feels a little like the wild west, but it got that way because people would try to take and harm others in that time. So if you wanted any semblance of a decent society, you sometimes had to take measure to deal with idiots.

These guys just wanted to stop Arbery, it's very clear there was no intent to kill. All he had to do was stop and explain. Having had a gun pointed at me when I was younger, I just complied..... and now I'm here today to annoy you all ;)

astronut97 says

If armed men in two pickup trucks started following you on a neighborhood street and tried to block your path multiple times what would you do, honestly?!

.

Depends. If you are absolutely set on not stopping and talking to them, go by what they are armed with: if they have only pistols or shotguns - distance is your friend, so it makes sense to run away, prefferably in the direction their pickup can't follow. If they have rifles you won't be able to gain enough distance on foot even if your name is Usain Bolt.

WookieMan says

He could have committed a felony when inside the home. The attitude that it's fine to just walk into a home under construction is still mind blowing to me. There are arsonist out there, people that just like breaking shit or say flooding the basement by turning the water on and letting it fuck things up.

Yep - I find this attitude unbelievable, never encountered it. Maybe it's a West of the Rockies thing?

astronut97 says

Also, I think it has to be a felony for a citizens arrest to be legally allowed in Georgia and merely walking onto someone's unsecured property isn't a felony, so that alone would make the McMichaels actions illegal

Assuming this will be the core of the case

WookieMan says

astronut97 says

merely walking onto someone's unsecured property isn't a felony

He could have committed a felony when inside the home. The attitude that it's fine to just walk into a home under construction is still mind blowing to me.

Its not fine. BUT, as mentioned, citizens arrest requires knowledge of a felony.

Did Mcmichaels have knowledge of a felony or just suspect of possible felony intent? The court will determine judgement, most likely, based on that interpretation.

covid_shmovid says

astronut97 says

If armed men in two pickup trucks started following you on a neighborhood street and tried to block your path multiple times what would you do, honestly?!

.

Depends. If you are absolutely set on not stopping and talking to them, go by what they are armed with: if they have only pistols or shotguns - distance is your friend, so it makes sense to run away, prefferably in the direction their pickup can't follow. If they have rifles you won't be able to gain enough distance on foot even if your name is Usain Bolt.

Where was he supposed to go? He tried to avoid them multiple times and this time he was boxed in between two pickup trucks and the driver in front having jumped out with a shotgun. Really what is wrong with all you guys here that think this is reasonable behavior and response to someone having been seen entering a house under construction for a couple of minutes? Holding a person against their will is considered kidnapping.

I'm from upstate New York and Michigan and currently in Orlando and I still walk into houses under construction. It's not a big deal.

PeopleUnited says

In other words, voicing support for “common sense gun laws.” Guess we know the truth now.

Now I argue no position on saying who or who can't own a gun. I'm saying if you're going to own a gun, there should be laws that protect, or makes the case for or against the result of the commission of that gun.

Here's the thing, you own a gun right? I don't see you jumping in your truck and doing what this guy did. Or maybe you're LEO, or SecOps mil, and you would. And if you would, what would you have done differently? Do you see everything this guy did, as a perfect execution, do you not see anything about what he did, that makes him liable for what happened? It wasn't cold blooded murder, but it was incompetent on in the executions of his actions. If you say you would have done everything this guy did, then you're as big of an idiot as Father and son are.

But if you're a sensible reasonable person, and you're being honest with yourself. You know you at most you would followed him in your car from a safe distance, that's if you felt like you needed to give chase. And you would have coordinated with the police keeping the 911 dispatch updated on the suspects location. You would have done the sensible thing, because you're not a police academy reject, wanna be.

Go back and look at these cases historically for the last 20 years or more. it's always some unhinged guy that had LEO aspirations, but was rejected by them. They want to be tough guy local Justice hero. I defend their right to own a gun, I don't defend their actions on being rogue vigilante dispatchers of Justice, what happens when they get it wrong. If they roll up on me, and I have no idea who in the hell they are, or why they are coming at me with a gun, I might take those two fat over weight Barney Fifes out before they know what hits them. They are a menace to themselves and everyone else around them. And it can't be allowed with impunity from the pro 2A people.

You wouldn't have done this and neither would I. There was absolutely nothing heroic about it, and the Auhmud had no legal obligation to recognize two Fat white guys chasing him down the road in a pick up truck, with their otherwise, beautiful perfectly legal guns.

CBOEtrader says

WookieMan says

astronut97 says

merely walking onto someone's unsecured property isn't a felony

He could have committed a felony when inside the home. The attitude that it's fine to just walk into a home under construction is still mind blowing to me.

Its not fine. BUT, as mentioned, citizens arrest requires knowledge of a felony.

Did Mcmichaels have knowledge of a felony or just suspect of possible felony intent? The court will determine judgement, most likely, based on that interpretation.

I get both sides of this, but at what point was there guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in this situation? I'm just preparing for these guys to get off. I don't think it was right what they did, but there hasn't been evidence or a fact that makes them guilty from what I've seen of anything. Whether anyone likes it or not, I've yet to see evidence of a violation of law in that specific case.

jazz_music says

These mass shootings seem to be rooted in people suffering from depression. Some of them are these approximately 18 year olds drenched in testosterone that see their prospects are awful after graduating high school. The FBI has studies on this, you can find them on the web, and it looks like the FBI knows exactly why these horrible things keep on happening over and over, it's oppressive poverty and loss, Then there are these internally tortured closeted or latent homosexuals. ALSO we wage so many wars we wind up with a lot of military-trained Americans amongst us and they have their PTSD, and 1 out of every 5 homeless is a veteran. I'm describing America the powder keg. With the wholesale betrayal of our vets I'm surprised we don't get more bombings. Maybe the popularity of weed mitigates that phenomenon.

A huge one is schizophrenic and schizoid personalities (aspects of schizophrenia without the full spectrum and low severity).

Remember that the Broward School Shooter had dozens of interactions with school and police authorities over the course of a year or so, but could only be forcibly hospitalized for a 72 hour period. He called police begging to be hospitalized, he was refused. It was known he had mental issues.

The obstacle is the ACLU and Leftist Groups that ended forcible hospitalization. It went from almost no real evidence needed, to all but impossible UNTIL a violent crime committed.

The dirty truth is that not all the autists and mentally ill can be mainstreamed into society, despite how good it makes their relatives or blank slate theorists feel.

That elementary school shooter in Connecticut, some issue. Mother in denial that he could not be mainlined, needed to be in a home. Same with VA Shooter.

jazz_music says

What you say sounds rational, but it omits the problem that (I think) half or more of America is taking SSRI drugs and other anti-depressants which can result in some really bad side effects that seem to be at the root of a long history of civil disturbances including suicide and murder.

These mass shootings seem to be rooted in people suffering from depression

You can't conflate out rights to bare arms with mentally unstable people. Look in India, there's countless cases of people working in Food Catering services, poisoning a whole Wedding party over politics, religion or family feud squabbles.

China has people attacking schools with machetes. Stopping law abiding citizens from being protected from these lunatics in their own home, from these people. Is against my rights to bare arms to protect my home.

Are you sure of the law? If there is no fence or other restrictions that block access, it is perfectly legal for folks to cross the property and even enter a building under construction. Doesn't matter what the owner thinks. I wouldn't do it, but that is why we have fences. I don't know if he had to open a door or as this was a construction site everything was open. In fact, if there was no fence or obstacle he had a perfect right to be there (he was not obstructing work, making threats, etc...). Under the law (CA) I believe there are two components: you must deprive the owner of use of the property AND the use was for a substantial period of time. Don't know about tx.

Even breaking and entering is "iffy" - did he actually take something or not? If you break down a door (or even just push a door) to get access but no intent to steal, in CA you would be charged with simple trespassing (non-felony). It gets even more complicated depending on the circumstance. There are lots of cases where even for breaking and entering where nothing is stolen even trespassing cannot be charged (person who entered had been invited over previously, location is a public attractant/nuisance, etc...).

Confronting a person with a gun outside your castle instead of just calling police and tailing the suspect was a mistake.

WookieMan says

astronut97 says

merely walking onto someone's unsecured property isn't a felony

He could have committed a felony when inside the home. The attitude that it's fine to just walk into a home under construction is still mind blowing to me. There are arsonist out there, people that just like breaking shit or say flooding the basement by turning the water on and letting it fuck things up.

I assisted/worked with builders in Chicago for 13 years. This owner/builder is a unicorn by saying he didn't care Arbery was in the property. His stance is likely a lie as he doesn't want to get sued because a black man was shot after entering his property. He's likely the one that told neighbors to keep an eye on the place. He doesn't want to be associated with Arbery's death at all and become an accessory to murder (there wasn't in this case), so he's lying.

So yes they legally confronted Arber...

If I were in Congress I would introduce "A Good Guy with a Gun." act.

That lays out, our right to bare arms is a constitutional right that shall not be infringed upon.
You have to the right to have a gun to defend your home and personal safety. Where lethal force is justified anything there is ample evidence the shooting went down as the shooter said, and not a slick way to cover for murder.
People need a gun to protect themselves from any tyranny from their government invading their home unjustly, and to protected against malicious criminal trespass.
No brainer always side with the shooter, after it's confirmed it went down in the lawful manner.

When do you become a good guy with a gun, vs a rouge menace at large, making a dangerous situation more volatile.

Someone that carries their gun and always have it one them where lawfully permitted, and are there first hand to witness a crime where pulling a gun is justified.
There needs to be a clear list of justified reasons, to stop someone from shouting at the store clerk is no reason to pull a gun for an example. The guy is pummeling the store clerk and is trying to rob the clerk. You're there, you're the good guy with a gun. Most likely what ever happens after that, I would say was most lawful. Especially if the assailant then attacked you, and got shot and killed.

I don't think, someone standing at the door realizing what is going on, and has an Oh Shit moment because he realizes he's unarmed so he runs out to his vehicle to retrieve his gun. I think anyone approaching a crime scene they know is a crime in progress. Because they heard screams for help, or they witnessed and left to get arms to return. They must contact 9-11 let them know who they are and where they are, and must get permission to reenter the scene. Because the police could be on the way, or there, and there are safety concerns. If it's a situation where a parish or county cops in rural areas, can't be there for 10 to 20 minutes. Then there should be a law also allowing that citizen access to go back in to engage.
I also think if you're an over weight Barney Fife that ends up getting innocent people killed by going in like John Wayne, you should be held criminally and civilly liable.

To me a Good guy with a gun, is at the scene when it goes down, and witnesses it first hand, we need more of those, We need much less guys pumped up to go running into volatile chaos, that's why the law enforcement is for.

Good Guy with a Gun legislation would guarantee that the right to bare arms is and shall never be infringed upon.
But use of deadly force, already has its own baked in laws that were violated, and the appropriate justice and be administered.
It protects every 2@ issue from becoming a Racial War issue. It cuts off Liberal's talking points to take guns away.

astronut97 says

Where was he supposed to go? He tried to avoid them multiple times and this time he was boxed in between two pickup trucks and the driver in front having jumped out with a shotgun.

I can't put myself into the stupid man's place. So I have no fucking idea were he should have went. His mom and dad should've used birth control 26 years ago, that's for sure.

krc says

in CA you would be charged with simple trespassing

In California you would be housed in a nice hotel and offered a stipend to buy alcohol and drugs.

Onvacation says

krc says

in CA you would be charged with simple trespassing

In California you would be housed in a nice hotel and offered a stipend to buy alcohol and drugs.

Don't think that the benefits are just for the homeless....

In certain locations, cities will put in a drought tolerant yard for the poor at no charge. Note these are people who own houses potentially in the 7 figures but get a yard replaced as they have no "income". House rich, job poor. Scroll toward the bottom. They also have programs for general house and roof repair at no charge as long as you make below a certain threshold of income - not asset value.

https://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/water-and-power/droughttolerantlandscapes/

jazz_music says

I think when Americans start to matter again, especially to their representatives, over the stock market, a lot of social ills will be corrected almost automatically.

The same wealthy tyrants that occupy our government with their money are using our military to improve their ROI.

We need to rise up and take our government and bring the robber barons to heel. Our government is our legitimate tool to do that, but we need to shake off all this divisive and self defeating propaganda BECAUSE THAT IS WHY WE CAN'T win.

Possibly the most reasonable perspective. The question is how can Americans matter again when a baby’s body parts are sold by Planned Parenthood for $25,000 a pop? How can Americans matter again when illegal immigrants are exploited in every way possible by everyone who can which also means taking jobs, housing and assistance that could have gone to actual Americans! How can Americans matter again when the media (owned and controlled by billionaires) and wealthy donors control who is even allowed to be a serious candidate for elected office? So I agree with you, that Americans need to join together to take our country back, and that divisive and self defeating propaganda is hindering the us from unity against those that seek to control and enslave. And that is why we need to promote Liberty at all costs, it is the only way to show the powers that be that we can still think for ourselves!

Tenpoundbass says

I'm saying if you're going to own a gun, there should be laws that protect, or makes the case for or against the result of the commission of that gun.

We have already had many decades of common sense gun legislation, we don’t need anymore good ideas, in fact we need to review and remove any laws that violate the 2A. There are many.

No doubt it is reasonable and prudent to hold every person accountable for their actions, and if people use 2A arms for criminal activity they deserve accountability. And if people wrongly accuse others of race crime, they deserve accountability for that.

The evidence I have seen is one person trespassing on an empty construction site, then it appears he attacked an armed man who was forced to defend himself, resulting in the death of his attacker. And now we have a bunch of fools trying to accuse the men who were attacked of a crime. It is the false accusations that need to be withdrawn in order to see justice served.

Answer the question, did you see anything wrong with the the way Father and Son went about it?
Would have done the same thing, or would you have done things much differently?

Why didn't father and son both get out of the truck unarmed and take the suspect down?

One guy jumps out and the other stayed in the truck. They were not qualified to try to do what they did.


Why were they using long guns, you don't use rifles and shotguns for close quarter law enforcement.
It's a point and shoot operation, things can get ugly if you get within grabbing distance.

I like how everybody is arguing about this case as if the law mattered.

The law is hundreds of thousands of pages long, you couldn't read the entire thing in your lifetime, what gets enforced is from pick and choice to get a desired outcome.

richwicks says

I like how everybody is arguing about this case as if the law mattered.

The law is hundreds of thousands of pages long, you couldn't read the entire thing in your lifetime, what gets enforced is from pick and choice to get a desired outcome.

True. In this case, though, people think that the suspect's entry into a construction site was justification to hunt him down and kill him as a matter of law. I don't think so. People seem to think he was violating the law in some way, and rather contrary to your point there is actually a lot of leeway given to what is "criminal" with regards to trespassing and / or burglary. If I see someone walking through your unfenced backyard, does a legal principle exist that says that that person would have been detained? Not typically. And certainly not tracked down and then murdered.

That he "resembled a burglary suspect" is a non-starter. Leave that to the police.

Tragic.

krc says

Even breaking and entering is "iffy" - did he actually take something or not? If you break down a door (or even just push a door) to get access but no intent to steal, in CA you would be charged with simple trespassing (non-felony).

Actually, in LA County, you wouldn't.

When you have homeless people screaming at you on your property, when the cops FINALLY show up hours later, they ask the homeless leading questions so they don't have to make an arrest.

https://twitter.com/COsweda/status/1262891249448738818

personal

This thing is probably over. The lawyers in the Clerisy have decided they're unlikely to win, the media backed away real fast from coverage. Time to wait until the next Juicy Smolley.

To my knowledge we have not seen any video evidence of a crime on the night in question other than trespassing and assault, and those were clearly committed by the departed.

It is clear from the video footage I have seen that the men who were attacked desired to have a peaceful resolution to the matter. If they wanted violence why did they wait til attacked to use deadly force? When they were attacked the departed took any possible peaceful resolution away. The departed initiated the violence that culminated in his own death.

How we feel about it, whether we would have behaved differently does not change the law or facts of this case.

I didn't see the video that way at all. I saw someone confronted by someone with a weapon for no reason, chased by multiple cars. If someone did that to me and I thought I had a chance to take them out, I would- because the alternative is that they will kill me anyway. Same as being on a plane - we all know that if someone is trying to take over a plane, you do whatever you can to the end of your life to stop them because you know there is no more "hostage" taking - you are going to be crashed into some skyscraper. If anyone points a gun and you, you need to move fast. Most likely you will be dead otherwise. Remember - those who understand guns know that if you are going to point at something you had better shoot it. And then we condemn people for reacting immediately when a gun pointed at them.

Too funny how we excuse poor gun ownership here when I for one firmly believe in the right to bear arms. But these guys were idiots and if they get away with this then you will see more Karens wanting gun control. At that point, if enough people believe this is crap, then a constitutional amendment WILL take place.

If we can't even condemn idiots acting irresponsibly, there is not much hope to see the 2nd amendment continue.

astronut97 says

Sounds like you should have been aborted as you can't even answer a simple question. The stupid people were the McMichaels and you it appears.

Why are you so butthurt, buddy?

krc says

I didn't see the video that way at all. I saw someone confronted by someone with a weapon for no reason, chased by multiple cars. If someone did that to me and I thought I had a chance to take them out, I would- because the alternative is that they will kill me anyway.

Weird logic. You don't know if they are going to kill you. But if you attack them you are giving them a good reason to do so. Practically forcing them.

krc says

If we can't even condemn idiots acting irresponsibly, there is not much hope to see the 2nd amendment continue.

Bingo,

Like the guy that brings a gun to go talk to neighbors about their loud music, and end up having to shoot someone.
When his actions created everything that happened up to that point. While the Pro 2@ people and the Gun Grabbers hijack the real crime, and turn it into a race tinged gun rights battle. Look we don't need registration and gun license. But there should be laws that if you do buy a gun, it's your responsibility to read a book that outlines the law and where you are protected as a gun owner, and where you would be instigating criminal liable outcomes.
If those thinking I'm venturing too close to Liberal gun grab laws.
Didn't read where I keep saying if you have a gun, and you are in a situation you didn't run to, you have defensive rights with the use of that gun.
In my idea scenario, gun owners would be required to know their boundaries, either read a book or take a course, but it would be on them.
But it would encourage more people to actually carry their gun on them, rather than keeping it in their car, or at home.
But just because you have gun, and you hear about a robbery, you're not Charles Bronson, you can't go running over to stop the bad guy with your gun and have a shoot out with them. Or chasing people down the street, you think cased your neighbors property.

Did not see any gun pointing, until the departed attacked. The fact that they were attacked, and needed to defend themselves, and the armed man survived the attack thanks to last resort of use of his weapon shows why the 2A is so important to protect.

covid_shmovid says

krc says

I didn't see the video that way at all. I saw someone confronted by someone with a weapon for no reason, chased by multiple cars. If someone did that to me and I thought I had a chance to take them out, I would- because the alternative is that they will kill me anyway.

Weird logic. You don't know if they are going to kill you. But if you attack them you are giving them a good reason to do so. Practically forcing them.

I think must be kidding but not sure. Take for example a plane. Post 9/11 are you saying you would let someone take over a plane simply because they were armed with a gun? For me, and perhaps I am different than you, I KNOW what they are going to do. And I would do whatever it takes to take them down even if that means we have to mass charge and lose a number of passengers.

Same with anyone pointing a gun at you. If you have a chance - and the "suspect" did have a chance - you TAKE it. I have never seen any self defense training that would say otherwise - check out the numerous youtube videos on CC actual videos. You make the assumption you will be a victim. He was not confronted by a police officer where you might actually have a chance to figure out what was going on. This is some oddball asshole and his friends confronting you - you have no idea what is going on but you had better assume the worse.

He did the right thing - because likely he would have been killed anyway. Anyone brazen enough to confront someone else outside their castle with a gun is "off." The confrontation was not managed well by those tracking down the suspect (I am still not sure he even did anything wrong...). Perhaps if they had better training, they would have been in a position to force a different outcome. But they didn't - and they should be held accountable.

I guess we should just start shooting anyone we think is "suspicious". Forget calling the police. Just kill-em-all.

We have not seen any evidence that the victims of the attack desired to kill anyone. If that was the desire why did they wait till attacked to use a weapon? They could have run him down with the car if they intended to hurt him. In fact they did not resort to violence until the departed attacked them.

PeopleUnited says

We have not seen any evidence that the victims of the attack desired to kill anyone. If that was the desire why did they wait till attacked to use a weapon? They could have run him down with the car if they intended to hurt him. In fact they did not resort to violence until the departed attacked them.

I am sorry, anyone following me in a vehicle with someone in the back in the position to get a bead on me has to be treated as someone that wants to end my life. I really am confused how folks who purportedly believe in the right to bear arms don't see this as negligent in every way. If your idea is that the right to bear arms entails the right to confront - that is NOT the case at all.

The ones in the truck promoted the violence simply by threatening the "suspect" with violence. I don't get it. Am I the only one that would do whatever I could to stop someone from killing me? The "suspect" doesn't know what the intention of these crazy dudes are - he can only assume the worst.

Are you seriously saying that if someone came up and chased you down in a truck with guns that you would stay there and say " please shoot me sir." .

I am 100% 2A - and vote that way. But this is an example where we should all agree these guys were out of line and should be held responsible. Forget about race, etc... This was pure negligence.