patrick.net

This case has made me think about how people should interact with other people.

20 years ago, if some security guard approached me simply because I was on some corporate property I was deeply offended. How dare some asshole think I'm a criminal just because I'm behind a store or on a corporate campus just because I wanted to avoid the streets? I was absolutely incensed by that. I deeply resented being thought to be a POSSIBLE criminal.

Today, I'll approach the security guard and actively resolve the situation, realizing I don't really belong there, and realize they are under some orders to keep people off the property. They have a job too and they don't know what the fuck I'm doing or why I'm there.

I think the main problem with society is people aren't willing to understand that other person's viewpoint or even try. I'm a whole lot better with conflict resolution today than I was 20 years ago. Not run into a conflict in years now except for people who truly are assholes. I was an asshole once myself.

The situation with Arbery was a failure of communication - even if Arbery WAS stealing, it was. 1) you don't confront people with a weapon - you better have an excuse to diffuse the situation 2) you shouldn't be trying to block off a criminal, even when he's a criminal - that's what a camera is for.

Don't be offended, don't yell or scream at people, resolve the problem. That mindset should be basic in our society, but it's not. It's a damned habit for me now. "How I do I resolve this situation?" That's all you should be focused upon - if you're required to lie to solve the situation, you fucked up. Abery once caught, would have moved on to other locations and would have become a person of interest. Not reason for the conflict itself.

ChauvinsKnee says

ran towards a guy with a gun and tried to grab it.

I find his behavior completely baffling. He did not try to evade these guys, he ran straight to a guy holding a shot gun and tried to wrest it from him. WHILE DUDE'S OTHER ARMED ASSOCIATES LOOKED ON. How the hell did he think it might work for him. It seems completely daft.
I'll bet these three crackers were shocked as shit that he behaved so irrationally.
There is a lesson in it, that you can never count on anybody else's rationality.

krc says

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...

He was fleeing until he wasn't. Grabbing for the gun is what did him in. This is the moment when potential false imprisonment flipped into a self-defense situation. Same as with Zimmerman, btw: he "chased" Trayvon and could have been in the wrong if he restricted his freedom to move w/o a good reason but Trayvon flipped the whole covfefe on its head by physically attacking Zim.

The fleeing is bullshit. Arbery could have run into the trees on the left or right, or turned around and ran the other way. The dashboard cam car from behind only showed up as Arbery was already running towards the two guys, if I remember.

If Arbery was cornered in an alleyway and tried to grab the gun with nowhere to go, I could see a case made about it being impossible to flee.

Additionally, when Arbery ran at them, then ducked around the truck to the right, he didn't have to suddenly lunge towards the shotgun guy... he could have kept running, and I think he wouldn't have been shot. The defendants were actually shocked he was running at them.

This will be appealed.

ChauvinsKnee says

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

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.

Jogging.
Trying to get away.

stfu says

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.

Where do you get the idea that he was shot due to theft, or a belief that he stole?

He was chased due to a belief he stole.

He was shot because he attacked a man with a gun. If they wanted to kill him for theft, they would have done so long before the actual moment he was shot - they easily could have ran him over with their vehicles, or they could have shot him from their vehicles, or they could have shot him after they got out of their vehicles. They didn't. They didn't even point a gun at him until after he charged and was within feet of the gun. The gun was only pointed as a means to shoot the attacker, at the very last millisecond.

Robert Sproul says

Jogging.
Trying to get away.

Should've been open and shut.

BayArea says

ChauvinsKnee says

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

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.

"Chasing" is just moving in the same direction. Means nothing until certain other actions are performed and/or words spoken.

BayArea says

Rittenhouse 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?

PeopleUnited says

BayArea says

Rittenhouse 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?

Actually as it applies to this case, that may be correct. You can’t go into a situation intending to instigate(or what a reasonable person would interpret as) and expect to no be held accountable for violence that occurs.

The takeaway from this incident if that if someone is committing non violent acts and it’s not directly on your property, your best course of action is to call the police and your worst course of action is arming yourself and going after the criminal.

Jury got this one correct .

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?

The jury is correct, The defendants made no claim as to making a citizen's arrest until well after the fact. Even then, the defendants did not legally have that ability as Arbery did not commit a felony. The defendants therefore were guilty of False Imprisonment. Arbery was within his rights to defend himself from criminal actions on the part of the defendants. He foolishly did so, but it was within his legal right. At least two of the defendants were therefore guilty of murder, as I see it.

Look up False Imprisonment.

PeopleUnited says

BayArea says

Rittenhouse 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 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.

Jury nailed it.

These last two cases have restored a bit of my faith in the system.

PeopleUnited says

BayArea says

Rittenhouse 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 anyone points a gun at me or my loved one when I haven’t committed a crime and they aren’t a cop… then yes, I have the right to kill them and am justified in doing so. I have no clue the background or mental capacity of said person. If I can be killed in a split second by a gunman with an itchy trigger finger… All bets are off.

Now is it smart to do so… in this case probably not. If the gunman was a serial killer or lunatic… then you would be better off taking any split second opportunity you have to disarm the individual.

Problem is you just don’t know in these instances until someone’s dead. Hence the problem with open carry laws.

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.

PeopleUnited says

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?

Kind of disingenuous to ask me to cite law when you know there’s active law being used to prosecute and what’s at argument is if the facts fit the law or do not, ie guilty or not guilty.


Clearly the jury did not believe the defendants were acting entirely in self defense(the legal version as detailed in the penal code below). In other words, if the victim came at the suspects and attempted to pull the gun from them and that’s in a vacuum, then yes the suspects would have been right in killing the victim. But this didn’t occur in a vacuum and if the suspects committed one of the actions listed below as exceptions to self defense, they are in fact guilty and we’re not defending themselves.

The difference in the Rittenhouse case was that Rittenhouse literally committed zero actions to attack or bait or create any kid of situation at all. Unless the audience is liberals and Democrats dumb enough to believe that simple by carrying a gun and adding in false facts makes oneself guilty of murder and not entitled to defend oneself. And that one should not have even been charged. The DA in Kenosha County is a fucktard and I hope a judge holds the DA personally financially responsible in the inevitable civil trial and financially ruins him.

But that’s not this case.

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-3/article-2/16-3-21


Here you go:

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

BoomAndBustCycle says

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.

I don’t actually know of any of these moronic rednecks you’ve chosen to build a caricature of. I suppose they exist, but like the boogeyman white supremecists, they’re probably pretty few and far between.

Hircus says

Where do you get the idea that he was shot due to theft, or a belief that he stole?

I didn't mean to say that but I see where you can feel I implied it. He was shot due to trying to take a gun away from an armed individual. That individual was there because of thefts in the neighborhood that the defendants believed were due to Arbrey - with some justification as the local police had been circulating Arbreys' picture as a person of interest in the recent string of thefts.

The thefts were tangential to the shooting but not the direct cause. Without the recent robberies there would not have been armed men chasing a black runner. At least that is what I assume? Who knows, maybe the Defendants did this on the regular?

I do agree with other posters that if Arbrey has simply turned around, or run around the side and away from the truck it all would have been a big nothing burger. I think he made a low IQ decision "in the moment" and it cost him his life. FWIW I understand his anger - I would be pissed too by a couple of armed gents basically determining where I have a right to go on public streets.

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.

BayArea says

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.

It is perfectly reasonable to be concerned for your life.

It is also perfectly reasonable to be concerned for your life if a man tries to grab your gun.

@fuckthemainstreammedia

If you believe the deceased was justified in grabbing the defendants gun, and that the defendant was committing a felony even before the deceased grabbed the gun then I can see why you agree with the jury on the murder charges.

I’m not convinced that the law supports a murder charge, based on what I have seen. The jury has seen much more than me, so that could be why they were convinced.

I don’t believe the deceased was justified in grabbing the defendants gun. I’m willing to consider that the defendants were potentially unlawful in chasing him down and attempting to detain him until the police could arrive to do their work. But intent to commit murder is unlikely at least for the man who called the police, and the man who took the video. Calling the police and taking the video are evidence that the intent was to record and involve the police rather than use force. The defendant who got out and confronted the deceased with a shotgun perhaps is the only one who might have had intent. Because I see no intent to kill, except maybe a small possibility of such by the trigger man for which the other two defendants could not have known his intent, I would think that if the defendants are guilty of murder it can only be predicated on classifying their pursuit as unlawful. But unlawful pursuit is not murder, it is unlawful pursuit. It appears the deceased committed no crime that day until he attempted to take the defendants gun. It appears the defendants may have perpetrated an unlawful pursuit, which offended the deceased, and due to the poor judgment of the deceased resulted in violence.

stfu says

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 feel like you're reiterating part of the same underlying point again - that he was shot/died due to a connection with theft. I feel this way because you just said "Deadly force is not allowed for property theft." But, deadly force was not used for that reason. Deadly force was used for self defense. Being armed, and displaying a weapon is not deadly force.

I also argue that they never intended to use deadly force on him - if they intended to use deadly force using their firearms on him due to events that transpired up to that point (such as theft), he would have been dead much sooner, and their actions would have been clearly aggressive in the moment leading up the the point of death, instead of the passive/defensive actions I saw.

The way I view this, is they were chasing him while on the phone with police, and wanted to prevent him from escaping and disappearing before police have a chance to apprehend him. They drove a ways ahead of Arbery and got out of their truck, and stood in the road, in Arberys path, probably hoping he would just stop fleeing. He displayed a shotgun resting at his side as he stood in the road, but he did not aim it at Arbery. I think the gun was there as a deterrent and/or protection, because they worried they might be attacked, not because they intended to execute him.

I had a similar thing happen to me long ago - I chased a thief who ran for a bit, but then turned and socked me. Also, lots of cops have been murdered by the villian theyre chasing, who "aint going back to jail" and will attempt to escape at all costs. Chasing/apprehending people can sometimes be very dangerous.

Anyway, I don't feel they had a duty to engage in hand to hand combat with Arbery if he decided to attack them, just because there's 2 of them and 1 of him. He may fight well, or may pull out a knife and kill one of them in a fraction of a second, and I feel extreme assumptions like these are warranted when someone is crazy enough to attack someone holding a gun. People do not need to subject themselves to the attacks of others, and they have a right to defend themselves from attacks.

I think mistakes or unfortunate decisions were made by both sides in this, but I feel the biggest was attacking someone armed, because it really pushes things into the zone of no return. It's a cloudy case IMO though, because even though I feel they were non-aggressive while standing in the street when Arbery ran up, they were chasing him prior to that.

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? The defendants looked and acted nuts IMO from the video.
I always think you should be proactive and not sit and be killed - but - hey - that is just me. I know others are more "peaceful" and "obediant". :)

They were chasing him. They instigated the confrontation any way you look at it. They were stupid and irresponsible.

Everyone who is defending these bozos is basically saying: well, sure, they were wrong chasing him, confronting him with a gun, but - hey - he moved toward them so they are then in a self-defense position and can kill him. I just don't buy it.

And all who say this will be reversed on appeal - that is delusional. The only one who may have a chance is the one recording the whole thing - and he should be in jail anyway for being so stupid.

Bad situation all around, but once you pull a gun you have a higher responsibility as you have escalated the situation.

krc says

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()

When did they point a gun at him? I wasn't aware of this.

krc says

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?

Well, in this case I would know why they're chasing me - because I was trespassing, and I took off running like a person guilty of something. And that I'm likely being chased by a neighbor. I would have kept running/walking away if I were in Arberys situation. If I could find other people, I may stop in the vicinity of them.

It's quite obvious they could have shot me from their truck, or ran me over using their truck, if they wanted that. But they didn't.

Attacking an armed man is a last resort, and I would only do that if I felt that I was likely to die if I did NOT attack. Attacking an armed man is an extreme escalation that is VERY likely going to result in my death.

An armed man who has not shot me yet, despite having opportunities, is not likely to shoot unless further escalated by something silly, like a futile attempt to attack them.

Yes. He runs around a car and is confronted by a crazy and a gun. He did nothing wrong. He wants to defend his life.
Obviously, the defendants did not make a convincing case that they shot out of self defense. The murderers provoked the confrontation any way you look at it.
Sure - Arbery "could have - should have" - but the murderers were the controlling responsible party as they 1) provoked the situation and 2) came armed looking for a confrontation.

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.

Initial footage is here:
https://www.wsbtv.com/video/raw-video/ahmaud-arbery-shooting-see-video-that-started-case/2BB3HRY33YBC6MPOXORJ2WVUKM/

"Provoked" is bullshit.

krc says

Yes. 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 results.

I even heard that Arbery actually ran around the semi-corner (the one where the video vantage point is) and then came back, and this return was when he ran up and got shot. So he probably ran hundreds of feet towards the man with a gun, while the man with a gun stood still next to his truck.

Hircus says

krc says

Yes. 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 ...

BUT THESE WERE REDNECKS WITH GUNS!! ANY REASONABLE MAN MUST ALWAYS CLOSE A 50FT GAP ASAP AND ATTACK THEM BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO SAVE HIS LIFE!!!

krc says

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.

You may be right. This was the idea the prosecutor in the Rittenhouse trial was trying to push, but Rittenhouse clearly didn’t provoke that fight. He was the one being chased for blocks and attacked. But in the Arbery case, the other men were clearly chasing him so maybe they lost their right to claim self defense under that statute? I guess?

All I know is that my gut told me Rittenhouse wasn’t guilty and my gut wasn’t sure about the Arbery situation. I don’t think Arbery was a good person and was probably up to no good, but the situation was sketchy. And the optics are frankly terrible.

Either way they were so stupid to have recorded it and not deleted it. Certainly letting it leak out was stupid enough alone to merit jail time.
They weren't out to lynch him or were racist (my opinion), but they were certainly fools. It correlates with the view that only the stupid go to prison - everyone else is smart enough to get away and not leave evidence like a video of the crime. :)

And, the prosecutor was able to tie up the primary defendant who testified admitting that the jogger was no threat and yet previously saying he thought decedent may
have had a gun. The testimony was just not believable. I was surprised he was put on the stand, but in self defense cases it seems you must. The key point made by the prosecutor is that Aubrey was trying to avoid a confrontation by going around the truck on the passenger side. The yahoo was on the left driver side - then the defendant moved around the front of the truck. Why? Only to provoke. Moreover, there was no probable cause for an arrest since they had not witnessed the alleged crime. And, the defense tried to play up the defendants coast guard work, but that really didn't help because it seemed like he should have known better what to do in that situation so he was negligent at best. Once the prosecutor convinced the jury there was no probable cause for a felony (required in GA law at that time), the goose was cooked. You can't be negligent, provoke a situation that leads to a death, and expect to get away with it.

From that point the video is unclear, but there was no reason for the defendant to have moved around the front of the truck unless he was taking the jogger down.

Look, you want to carry guns around in public and threaten and so forth, that is fine. I am all for open carry. But you have a larger responsibility to assess the situation and take the right course. In this case the defendant admits he moves towards the criminal suspect who may have trespassed (unknown by the defendant and ADMITTED to that fact on the stand - suspicion only). The decedent can't see him behind the truck and probably thinks these guys are yahoos and will just blow by them - and then he sees the gun right in front of him.

Optics were poor. Defendants were stupid.

Still - surprised the defendant who recorded the whole thing was punished so severely. Maybe that will teach fools that videos should often never see the light of day. Jury sent him a message for sure...

Two words the defendants never heard: TUELLER DRILLS. The guy was literally milliseconds and inches away from getting his gun taken away from him (basic martial arts move) and probably shot to death with it.

IDK if Arbery was committing a burglary; if he was it's good that someone was confronting this instead of pussying out and just letting them get away with it yet again. However, these guys did SO many things wrong if they were justly pursuing a suspect. Mainly, they did NOT have firsthand evidence of a crime justifying any attempt to pursue or detain him. They'd have been better off calling 911 and observing the suspect's whereabouts at a distance while on the phone to dispatch. Stepping out with a gun the way he did escalated the situation to immediate deadly force, and criminal or not, it was a ballsy move to rush the gun that almost succeeded for the guy.

FuckCCP89 says

"Provoked" is bullshit.

This is the key here isn’t it?

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.

Renders this thread kind moot because while one side is arguing this, the other side is arguing that the jurors got things correct because they followed the law.

FuckTheMainstreamMedia says

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.

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.

FuckCCP89 says

Hircus says

krc says

Yes. 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.

richwicks says

FuckTheMainstreamMedia says

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.

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.

I’ve been on a jury on the other end of this. That is the DA couldn’t prove definitively that the suspect was the shooter. So instead they used a California law that says if you commit actions that a reasonable person would understand would likely lead to further more violent acts, that you are guilty of the subsequent acts as well, even if it’s not know if you directly committed those acts or your co conspirators committed the acts. 3 of the 12 jurors outright stated they didn’t like the law. What’s funny is there were 5 blacks on the jury (3 from the hood and the suspect was black). The three from the hood all had the suspect guilty immediately when we did a first poll as soon as we got in the jury room. I’m thinking they had already made up their minds based on life experience.

FuckTheMainstreamMedia says

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.

We allow the laws we have because there's a complete absence of civic responsibility in the country. Can you even name any bills that are being put through your state or federal government at this moment?