Open Season: "Vigilantes" Shoot Black Jogger in Georgia

[Des-Bal]

[
The video shows exactly what they said happened. The guy charges and grapples with a man until he is shot by another man.

Not at all, he runs around the other side of the truck initially only to have the guy come round the front pointing a gun at him, he clearly aims to push the gun down, he is not attacking or grappling the man at all, he is trying to avoid being shot.

Perhaps it's counted as manslaughter not murder by law, but they unlawfully shot an innocent man.. just as George Zimmerman did to be honest, just there wasn't any video to contradict his version of events given the other person was dead.[/quote]


1) By suggesting video would have convicted zimmerman you've ceded the evidence as presented allowed only that he was not guilty and that Trayvon Mart was righteously shot in self-defense. Just so you understand what you're slinging.

2) The video shows no such thing. The man with he shotgun steps forward to confront Arbey and backs away when Arbey begins charging him and persists in retreating as Arbey fights him for the gun.

[Gormwood]

The police have arrested and charged them with murder in light of the video that contradicts what they claimed.

Still, what would you call it exactly?

Like Zimmerman who was also not guilty and who was also found not guilty. Being charged is not evidence of guilt, if you dont understand that they generally kick you off a jury.

Zimmerman dodged being filmed. These assholes didn't. Quit being... forget it.

[Bombadil]

1) By suggesting video would have convicted zimmerman you've ceded the evidence as presented allowed only that he was not guilty and that Trayvon Mart was righteously shot in self-defense. Just so you understand what you're slinging.

Sure, I accept that given the way weight of evidence is accepted then by the law he was found not guilty, doesn't mean I think the law is fucking stupid in this regard. It essentially allows anyone to murder anyone and claim self-defence

2) The video shows no such thing. The man with the shotgun steps forward to confront Arbey and backs away when Arbey begins charging him and persists in retreating as Arbey fights him for the gun.

Exactly, he steps forward to confront.. thus Arbey is acting in self-defence and is shot. If not murder then clearly manslaughter.

[Des-Bal]

Because the man they killed was standing his ground against someone who had engaged in an illegal pursuit of him and was threateningly brandishing a firearm. He was clearly in imminent fear of his life. You should not be able to threaten someone into using self defense and claim self defense (their claim of citizens arrest is even more absurd, as detailed in the OP).

You can’t provoke a violent scenario and then claim self defense.

His fears are only material in the event that he is put on trial. It is their fears which dictate the appropriateness of self-defense. Their pursuit and approach was lawful under the Geprgia statutes pertaining to self-defense, if you would argue those laws are unjust then it should be argued to the legislature without suggestion that these men did anything unlawful.

They did not brandish their weapons within any conscionable meaning.A man carried a shotgun, attempting to conceal it would have been criminal, failure to stow away an openly carried weapon cannot satisfy "brandishing."

[Des-Bal]

Sure, I accept that given the way weight of evidence is accepted then by the law he was found not guilty, doesn't mean I think the law is fucking stupid in this regard. It essentially allows anyone to murder anyone and claim self-defence

2) The video shows no such thing. The man with the shotgun steps forward to confront Arbey and backs away when Arbey begins charging him and persists in retreating as Arbey fights him for the gun.

Exactly, he steps forward to confront.. thus Arbey is acting in self-defence and is shot. If not murder then clearly manslaughter.

Whine about the law to the legislature, attempting to apply a law not recorded at the time of the offense is nothing less than rule by fiat and it is injustice laid bare.


Stepping forward to confront was a legal act and does not preclude a claim of self-defense.

[Bombadil]

Sure, I accept that given the way weight of evidence is accepted then by the law he was found not guilty, doesn't mean I think the law is fucking stupid in this regard. It essentially allows anyone to murder anyone and claim self-defence

2) The video shows no such thing. The man with the shotgun steps forward to confront Arbey and backs away when Arbey begins charging him and persists in retreating as Arbey fights him for the gun.

Exactly, he steps forward to confront.. thus Arbey is acting in self-defence and is shot. If not murder then clearly manslaughter.

Whine about the law to the legislature, attempting to apply a law not recorded at the time of the offense is nothing less than rule by fiat and it is injustice laid bare.


Stepping forward to confront was a legal act and does not preclude a claim of self-defense.

Arbey clearly felt threatened and clearly acted in self-defence against people who tracked him down bearing weapons. What your logic entails is that his only mistake was not killing McMichael because then he could claim stand your ground, that is insane logic.

[Des-Bal]

Arbey clearly felt threatened and clearly acted in self-defence against people who tracked him down bearing weapons. What your logic entails is that his only mistake was not killing McCready because then he could claim stand your ground, that is insane logic.

Bring it up at Arbey's trial brah. Till then it doesn't matter if he was justified because nobody is suggesting he be punished.

Zimmerman dodged being filmed. These assholes didn't. Quit being... forget it.

He didn't dodge anything, he was not guilty, the sheriff's department knew it, the prosecutor affirmed it, and the jury ruled it. The only people who thought he was guilty either failed to understand or value the law.

[Bombadil]

Arbey clearly felt threatened and clearly acted in self-defence against people who tracked him down bearing weapons. What your logic entails is that his only mistake was not killing McCready because then he could claim stand your ground, that is insane logic.

Bring it up at Arbey's trial brah. Till then it doesn't matter if he was justified because nobody is suggesting he be punished.

He is punished, he's fucking dead.

Do you agree that if Arbey killed McMichaels he could claim stand your ground and be found innocent?

[Galloism]

Because the man they killed was standing his ground against someone who had engaged in an illegal pursuit of him and was threateningly brandishing a firearm. He was clearly in imminent fear of his life. You should not be able to threaten someone into using self defense and claim self defense (their claim of citizens arrest is even more absurd, as detailed in the OP).

You can’t provoke a violent scenario and then claim self defense.

His fears are only material in the event that he is put on trial. It is their fears which dictate the appropriateness of self-defense. Their pursuit and approach was lawful under the Geprgia statutes pertaining to self-defense, if you would argue those laws are unjust then it should be argued to the legislature without suggestion that these men did anything unlawful.

They did not brandish their weapons within any conscionable meaning.A man carried a shotgun, attempting to conceal it would have been criminal, failure to stow away an openly carried weapon cannot satisfy "brandishing."

You gotta love a legal system where the person who lives was in the right, because they were both engaging in self defense against each other.

It’s all very medieval.

[Bombadil]

His fears are only material in the event that he is put on trial. It is their fears which dictate the appropriateness of self-defense. Their pursuit and approach was lawful under the Geprgia statutes pertaining to self-defense, if you would argue those laws are unjust then it should be argued to the legislature without suggestion that these men did anything unlawful.

They did not brandish their weapons within any conscionable meaning.A man carried a shotgun, attempting to conceal it would have been criminal, failure to stow away an openly carried weapon cannot satisfy "brandishing."

You gotta love a legal system where the person who lives was in the right, because they were both engaging in self defense against each other.

It’s all very medieval.

Pretty much, if she burns she's not a witch, if she doesn't she is, kill the witch!

[Des-Bal]

He is punished, he's fucking dead.

Do you agree that if Arbey killed McMichaels he could claim stand your ground and be found innocent?

Stand your ground is irrelvant.

Basic self-defense law says if you think you might be badly hurt or killed you can badly hurt or kill the person responsible to save yourself if you can't run away.

Stand your ground says it doesn't matter if you can run away.

Stand your ground doesn't apply here, just like it didn't in Zimmerman.

[Neanderthaland]

His fears are only material in the event that he is put on trial. It is their fears which dictate the appropriateness of self-defense. Their pursuit and approach was lawful under the Geprgia statutes pertaining to self-defense, if you would argue those laws are unjust then it should be argued to the legislature without suggestion that these men did anything unlawful.

They did not brandish their weapons within any conscionable meaning.A man carried a shotgun, attempting to conceal it would have been criminal, failure to stow away an openly carried weapon cannot satisfy "brandishing."

You gotta love a legal system where the person who lives was in the right, because they were both engaging in self defense against each other.

It’s all very medieval.

God will surely favor the just man!

[Des-Bal]

You gotta love a legal system where the person who lives was in the right, because they were both engaging in self defense against each other.

It’s all very medieval.

More accurately it's a system where two parties can be in the right and one can be deceased. It's not perfect but I don't believe there's a better one.

[Galloism]

He is punished, he's fucking dead.

Do you agree that if Arbey killed McMichaels he could claim stand your ground and be found innocent?

Stand your ground is irrelvant.

Basic self-defense law says if you think you might be badly hurt or killed you can badly hurt or kill the person responsible to save yourself if you can't run away.

Stand your ground says it doesn't matter if you can run away.

Stand your ground doesn't apply here, just like it didn't in Zimmerman.

Notably, self defense is generally barred if you were engaging in a crime at the time.

IE, you can’t rob a gas station and then shoot the clerk in self defense, even if you were in fear for your life, because you caused the situation that resulted in the death.

[Galloism]

You gotta love a legal system where the person who lives was in the right, because they were both engaging in self defense against each other.

It’s all very medieval.

God will surely favor the just man!

You laugh, but you’re uncomfortable.

[Des-Bal]

Notably, self defense is generally barred if you were engaging in a crime at the time.

IE, you can’t rob a gas station and then shoot the clerk in self defense, even if you were in fear for your life, because you caused the situation that resulted in the death.

True. The problem is inadvisable conduct is not a crime. It wasn't in Zimmerman and it wasn't here. They were acting within the bounds of the law when they confronted him and whether or not violence would have occurred in the absence of that confrontation is immaterial- precisely because the confrontation was lawful. If the kid aimed the gun at him it would be assault and it would preclude self defense but the citizens arrest statute is clear and trying to bring the guy to heel is something they were permitted to do.

[Neanderthaland]

God will surely favor the just man!

You laugh, but you’re uncomfortable.

Oh, I'm not laughing. Nothing about this is funny.

[Bombadil]

He is punished, he's fucking dead.

Do you agree that if Arbey killed McMichaels he could claim stand your ground and be found innocent?

Stand your ground is irrelvant.

Basic self-defense law says if you think you might be badly hurt or killed you can badly hurt or kill the person responsible to save yourself if you can't run away.

Stand your ground says it doesn't matter if you can run away.

Stand your ground doesn't apply here, just like it didn't in Zimmerman.

Fine, if Arbey killed McMichaels he could claim self-defence and be found innocent, you agree?

[Galloism]

Notably, self defense is generally barred if you were engaging in a crime at the time.

IE, you can’t rob a gas station and then shoot the clerk in self defense, even if you were in fear for your life, because you caused the situation that resulted in the death.

True. The problem is inadvisable conduct is not a crime. It wasn't in Zimmerman and it wasn't here. They were acting within the bounds of the law when they confronted him and whether or not violence would have occurred in the absence of that confrontation is immaterial- precisely because the confrontation was lawful. If the kid aimed the gun at him it would be assault and it would preclude self defense but the citizens arrest statute is clear and trying to bring the guy to heel is something they were permitted to do.

Citizens arrest law doesn’t seem to apply here, unless you have more info than I can find.

“ 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.”

Was the burglary done in his presence? Probably not, or this would have gone down before.

Was it within his immediate knowledge? Doesn’t appear so, since they apparently intended to question him, not arrest him (hence the “we want to talk to you”).

[Des-Bal]

Fine, if Arbey killed McMichaels he could claim self-defence and be found innocent, you agree?

Like four times? I have said repeatedly that if this was the Arbey shot 3 guys thread I'd be on his side. That doesn't matter. Arbey doesn't need tot argue self-defense because it's spectacularly unlikely his corpse will be sent to jail.

[Des-Bal]

Citizens arrest law doesn’t seem to apply here, unless you have more info than I can find.

“ 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.”

Was the burglary done in his presence? Probably not, or this would have gone down before.

Was it within his immediate knowledge? Doesn’t appear so, since they apparently intended to question him, not arrest him (hence the “we want to talk to you”).

The problem lies with your reading.


The second sentence is literally and genuinely meaningless if it is predicated on the first sentence. If the crime is a felony the law does not require the crime be within your immediate knowledge or presence. They had reasonable and probable grounds to suspect he was responsible for at least one felony.

[Bombadil]

Fine, if Arbey killed McMichaels he could claim self-defence and be found innocent, you agree?

Like four times? I have said repeatedly that if this was the Arbey shot 3 guys thread I'd be on his side. That doesn't matter. Arbey doesn't need tot argue self-defense because it's spectacularly unlikely his corpse will be sent to jail.

That is the logic of the insane. I don't generally believe the law to be insane. I cannot be allowed to corner a person with a gun and then shoot them given they try to disarm me to escape and I am found innocent of a crime.

Like I say, if they are not at least found guilty of manslaughter then the law is an ass, and frankly we all know that if Arbey had killed McMichaels then at best he'd have immediately been arrested and charged and at worst he'd still be dead regardless. If two black people tracked down a white jogger and shot him Trump himself would be tweeting in outrage.

This is racism, pure and simple, and it's also murder. Sure we'll have to await the court case though god knows there'll be a manslaughter plea deal or less.

They had reasonable and probable grounds to suspect he was responsible for at least one felony.

What, that he was black - it would not be a consistent reasonable and probably grounds if he was white, they'd have not taken this action, it was unreasonable and improbable that he'd committed any felony at all.

[Des-Bal]

[

That is the logic of the insane. I don't generally believe the law to be insane. I cannot be allowed to corner a person with a gun and then shoot them given they try to disarm me to escape and I am found innocent of a crime.

Like I say, if they are not at least found guilty of manslaughter then the law is an ass, and frankly we all know that if Arbey had killed McMichaels then at best he'd have immediately been arrested and charged and at worst he'd still be dead regardless. If two black people tracked down a white jogger and shot him Trump himself would be tweeting in outrage.

This is racism, pure and simple, and it's also murder. Sure we'll have to await the court case though god knows there'll be a manslaughter plea deal or less.

Oh the law is on your side? Then point to a statute and stop crying.

[Galloism]

Citizens arrest law doesn’t seem to apply here, unless you have more info than I can find.

“ 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.”

Was the burglary done in his presence? Probably not, or this would have gone down before.

Was it within his immediate knowledge? Doesn’t appear so, since they apparently intended to question him, not arrest him (hence the “we want to talk to you”).

The problem lies with your reading.


The second sentence is literally and genuinely meaningless if it is predicated on the first sentence. If the crime is a felony the law does not require the crime be within your immediate knowledge or presence. They had reasonable and probable grounds to suspect he was responsible for at least one felony.

The second sentence seems to be predicated on the first, but even if it is not, they have neither reasonable grounds nor probable grounds for suspicion, nor was he even fleeing at the time they began pursuing him. He was jogging.

Nor does it appear any arrest was being attempted. No one seems to have used the words “citizens arrest” or “you’re under arrest” at any point. Whether or not they might have after questioning is irrelevant - the fact that they attempted to question him (after chasing him with guns) shows no arrest was being attempted.

[Bombadil]

[

That is the logic of the insane. I don't generally believe the law to be insane. I cannot be allowed to corner a person with a gun and then shoot them given they try to disarm me to escape and I am found innocent of a crime.

Like I say, if they are not at least found guilty of manslaughter then the law is an ass, and frankly we all know that if Arbey had killed McMichaels then at best he'd have immediately been arrested and charged and at worst he'd still be dead regardless. If two black people tracked down a white jogger and shot him Trump himself would be tweeting in outrage.

This is racism, pure and simple, and it's also murder. Sure we'll have to await the court case though god knows there'll be a manslaughter plea deal or less.

Oh the law is on your side? Then point to a statute and stop crying.

Involuntary manslaughter
A killing that stems from a lack of intention to cause death but involving an intentional or negligent act leading to death.

They intentionally followed an unarmed man while bearing weapons, confronted that man with no knowledge or reasonable or probable cause of any offence committed by that man, and then shot that man when he attempted self-defence.