Open Season: "Vigilantes" Shoot Black Jogger in Georgia

[The Alma Mater]

So if two random black men with weapons are shouting at you to stop and obey, you would without hesitation instead of trying to save your life ?

Also nice to see you skip over the request for sources.

Obviously, if someone is armed and telling me to stop, self preservation usually wins, I have been mugged before in the past.

Ah, I would have slit their throats. Which actually would have been self defence.
Sorry btw that you were attacked for answering my question.

[Ifreann]

The video was reportedly leaked by the attorney of the killers in a hilariously inept attempt to clear their names.

It was leaked to show the truth, not to exonerate or condemn them in anyway, said the attorney.

I'm sure his clients appreciate his commitment to the truth.

[The Alma Mater]

The video was reportedly leaked by the attorney of the killers in a hilariously inept attempt to clear their names.

It was leaked to show the truth, not to exonerate or condemn them in anyway, said the attorney.

No, he said he leaked it because he was convinced that people would deem his clients innocent if they saw the victim refused to obey the white men pointing guns at him.

[Kernen]

I didn't see any shooting until the struggle for the gun began. The man had police training. If his intention was to shoot him, he wouldn't get so close and would have started firing from a safe distance.

Again, you can't claim self defens if the shooting was in commission of a crime. They were committing false imprisonment, ergo they cannot claim self defense.

That might not stick depending on exceptions for citizens arrests? Based just on the common law tort of false imprisonment. I'm not sure this strictly counts. Not the strongest argument against self defense here, I think.

[Spirit of Hope]

Again, you can't claim self defens if the shooting was in commission of a crime. They were committing false imprisonment, ergo they cannot claim self defense.

That might not stick depending on exceptions for citizens arrests? Based just on the common law tort of false imprisonment. I'm not sure this strictly counts. Not the strongest argument against self defense here, I think.

Georgia requires you see or have immediate knowledge of a crime to commit a citizens arrest. Since Arbery hadn't committed a crime, it is hard to argue that he was seen committing a crime.

Edit: plus I linked a previous case where a man was found guilty of false imprisonment for blocking a women from leaving her room. While not a perfect comparison, I think blocking a person's travel in public would be comparable.

[Kernen]

That might not stick depending on exceptions for citizens arrests? Based just on the common law tort of false imprisonment. I'm not sure this strictly counts. Not the strongest argument against self defense here, I think.

Georgia requires you see or have immediate knowledge of a crime to commit a citizens arrest. Since Arbery hadn't committed a crime, it is hard to argue that he was seen committing a crime.

But defense to false imprisonment is that there is a likely miscarriage of justice but for the act. That could be enough to skate by on the question of a crime exemption to self defense. Since false imprisonment is hard to prove here, a better defense rests instead on provocation.

[Kernen]

That might not stick depending on exceptions for citizens arrests? Based just on the common law tort of false imprisonment. I'm not sure this strictly counts. Not the strongest argument against self defense here, I think.

Georgia requires you see or have immediate knowledge of a crime to commit a citizens arrest. Since Arbery hadn't committed a crime, it is hard to argue that he was seen committing a crime.

Edit: plus I linked a previous case where a man was found guilty of false imprisonment for blocking a women from leaving her room. While not a perfect comparison, I think blocking a person's travel in public would be comparable.

On mobile, big edits are hard. Please quote both to respond.

Trapped in a room has physical boundaries. Trapped outside makes that, factually, much harder. And since you're basing a murder charge on that, it makes the whole case flimsy. You essentially would have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Arbrey couldn't flee in another direction, and that it therefore constituted a crime for the purposes of a self defense exception. I dont think that's a winning case.

[Arkhane]

I didn't see any shooting until the struggle for the gun began. The man had police training. If his intention was to shoot him, he wouldn't get so close and would have started firing from a safe distance.

Pointing the gun is itself escalation of force. Drawing the gun is. In some places, touching the gun in the holster is sufficient.

Shrewd observation, if I didn't know any better, I almost thought they weren't trying to force him to stop.

Ofcourse they used force, how Ahmaud acted, however, is not typical for how an innocent civilian would have reacted upon being cornered. I've seen videos of people being arrested illegally by gungho gloryhounds. Suffice to say, this incident no longer evokes the same feelings of pity for the victim in light of new evidences that showed.

I don't have the means or resources to personally see to it or complete the investigation and document my findings, but my mind is made up that this is not racially motivated. Do I think the shooters were blameless? No. They could have acted better, but I do think they set themselves up in a situation that endangered everyone's lives that day and the man who got shot was more involved than he seemed.

[Arkhane]

It was leaked to show the truth, not to exonerate or condemn them in anyway, said the attorney.

No, he said he leaked it because he was convinced that people would deem his clients innocent if they saw the victim refused to obey the white men pointing guns at him.

Quite the narrative you have there.

[The Alma Mater]

Ofcourse they used force, how Ahmaud acted, however, is not typical for how an innocent civilian would have reacted upon being cornered.

Indeed. An innocent civilian would have gone for the kill.

Oh sorry, not what you meant ? Guess people react differently then.

[Arkhane]

It was leaked to show the truth, not to exonerate or condemn them in anyway, said the attorney.

I'm sure his clients appreciate his commitment to the truth.

He wanted people to draw their own conclusions. Like what we're doing now.

[The Alma Mater]

No, he said he leaked it because he was convinced that people would deem his clients innocent if they saw the victim refused to obey the white men pointing guns at him.

Quite the narrative you have there.

It's what he said.
Well, admittedly the words "white men" were my own addition. The remainder however was his actual reasoning.

[Qabea]

So with the new video released; do we think that's him or not in the house after dark and if it's him, does that mean he was behind the robberies?

[Kernen]

Pointing the gun is itself escalation of force. Drawing the gun is. In some places, touching the gun in the holster is sufficient.

Shrewd observation, if I didn't know any better, I almost thought they weren't trying to force him to stop.

Ofcourse they used force, how Ahmaud acted, however, is not typical for how an innocent civilian would have reacted upon being cornered. I've seen videos of people being arrested illegally by gungho gloryhounds. Suffice to say, this incident no longer evokes the same feelings of pity for the victim in light of new evidences that showed.

I don't have the means or resources to personally see to it or complete the investigation and document my findings, but my mind is made up that this is not racially motivated. Do I think the shooters were blameless? No. They could have acted better, but I do think they set themselves up in a situation that endangered everyone's lives that day and the man who got shot was more involved than he seemed.

Shouting stop undermines the idea that they werent trying to get him to stop. Which they admitted to iirc.

How the victim reacted compared to ordinary people is barely relevant. It is accepted that attacks provoke response. That is why proportionate use of force is not a crime or a tort in most cases. The shooter escalated. The victim responded. That does not exhonorate the shooter.

The racial motivations are, ultimately, something we cannot readily speculate upon due to a lack of testimony. That said, racial bias in law enforcement and in Georgian white men is well documented. There is absolutely enough circumstantial evidence to make a good case.

[Arkhane]

Ofcourse they used force, how Ahmaud acted, however, is not typical for how an innocent civilian would have reacted upon being cornered.

Indeed. An innocent civilian would have gone for the kill.

Oh sorry, not what you meant ? Guess people react differently then.

Innocent people in general would never do what Ahmaud did. People react differently based on what they know and what they did.

[Kernen]

I'm sure his clients appreciate his commitment to the truth.

He wanted people to draw their own conclusions. Like what we're doing now.

No he didnt. He wanted to prejudice a jury to preserve an appeal.

[The Alma Mater]

So with the new video released; do we think that's him or not in the house after dark and if it's him, does that mean he was behind the robberies?

Well, there were no robberies. So it could not have been him behind them.
If it was him trespassing (unless it turns out he really owned said property) - uncertain. Possible.

[Arkhane]

Quite the narrative you have there.

It's what he said.
Well, admittedly the words "white men" were my own addition. The remainder however was his actual reasoning.

His initial response says otherwise.

[The Alma Mater]

Indeed. An innocent civilian would have gone for the kill.

Oh sorry, not what you meant ? Guess people react differently then.

Innocent people in general would never do what Ahmaud did.

Utter nonsense.

[Kernen]

Indeed. An innocent civilian would have gone for the kill.

Oh sorry, not what you meant ? Guess people react differently then.

Innocent people in general would never do what Ahmaud did. People react differently based on what they know and what they did.

Innocent people run when afraid. Innocent people fight when cornered. We all have a fight/flight response. Bad argument is bad.

[The Alma Mater]

It's what he said.
Well, admittedly the words "white men" were my own addition. The remainder however was his actual reasoning.

His initial response says otherwise.

Was it not you who said we should keep up with more recent news ? You are still a few weeks behind.

[Cannot think of a name]

So with the new video released; do we think that's him or not in the house after dark and if it's him, does that mean he was behind the robberies?

First, there would have to be robberies.

[Arkhane]

He wanted people to draw their own conclusions. Like what we're doing now.

No he didnt. He wanted to prejudice a jury to preserve an appeal.

I don't see any difference. Unless he edited the video or added his own interpretation. He did it to influence people to think one way or the other.

[Vassenor]

Indeed. An innocent civilian would have gone for the kill.

Oh sorry, not what you meant ? Guess people react differently then.

Innocent people in general would never do what Ahmaud did. People react differently based on what they know and what they did.

Innocent people make no attempt to defend themselves when threatened with guns? What?

[Kernen]

No he didnt. He wanted to prejudice a jury to preserve an appeal.

I don't see any difference. Unless he edited the video or added his own interpretation. He did it to influence people to think one way or the other.

There is a difference. One can be done with a public statement. the other is releasing the prosecution's Exhibit A to ensure they have unending strikes against any juror they dislike. Since the minority community will absolutely pay better attention to this than privileged white populations likely will, it's a great way to get black men and women off the jury.


This is a shitty argument. You clearly dont know much court procedure.