Crime Ahmaud Arbery shooting v3

[b34stmode]

Travis not having the right to arrest him, or even to brandish his weapon, doesn't entail Arbery having the right to attack him, and attempt to take his gun from him.

Yes it does. As soon as he pointed the shotgun at him, he feared for his life and had every right to do anything he deemed necessary to disarm him. Hence the jogging for 4 minutes and nobody is shot, seconds after the son gets out and points the shotgun someone is shot. All of that is on the son.

 

[BEER]

Attempting to disarm one of the men who set up an armed roadblock and has run across the street towards him brandishing a shotgun and shouting orders at him doesn't have to be Arbery's literal only possible option in the world to be considered self-defense. There's no precedent for that. He had a right to run down the side of the road unthreatened. Travis had no right to set up a road block and charge someone brandishing a shotgun. Just because with hindsight you can pour over a video and find spot a route that could or could not have hypothetically allowed Arbery to escape Travis chasing after him doesn't in any way rescind Abery's right to defend himself. All that needs to be established is whether Arbery could logically reason Travis constituted an immediate threat to him and logically reason disarming him could negate the immediate threat. A dude chasing you for a long time and running around the street at you with a shotty, yep that about covers it.

The shooter and his old man themselves established 2 things as does the video. Arbery had gone to great, great lengths for a very long time to evade them and not engage. In response they set up armed road block to trap him and force a confrontation with brandished deadly weapons. Arbery in response attempted as you stated to defensively run around them for the countless time and the shooter decides he wants to confront Arbery with the shotgun so he runs towards him thus causing the confrontation. Shooter stands still, not an immediate threat. Shooter runs around truck and tries to block Arbery from getting to safety? That's an immediate threat. You arguing Arbery didn't explore the option of evading them to a great enough extent when that's what they admit he did for a very long time to the point they needed to break a ton of laws to make that has difficult and dangerous for him as possible is now tripling down on the frankly terrible logic you have in this thread.

Yes, once it was far too late and Travis had already run up on Arbery with a gun and started a confrontation with a deadly weapon he took a step back, but that doesn't matter because he had already clearly crossed the line by such a margin. You can't toss up a road block, run around your truck at someone with a shotgun, and then jump back and cry foul when they start defending themselves and you don't like getting beat up. That's ridiculous. Travis did something that would grant any pedestrian the right to swing on him when approached and then shot the guy for swinging on him.

This is a very good post, but let me fix it for you:

Deciding to grab guns and chase a man through a neighborhood before cutting him off and killing him in his final moment of desperation is illogical. Far more illogical than responding to your fight or flight response after "flight" had been removed from the equation.

 

[Madmick]

That’s one way to look at it, I guess. The other is it’s fun and kind of a civic duty to get the stormfront crew that infests this place to expose themselves. With you as their uninformed leader sporting a bad case of logorrhea it’s all too easy.

So are you gonna tell us how you think it would go down if you chased down and jumped in front of some dude with your shottie? How do you think a citizen with rights would react and why?

So now you're alleging that anyone who disagrees with your assessment of how this should be handled, or how the law likely bears on it, is a white supremacist-- including me.

You believe you are the one catching out those carrying hate in their hearts, but I believe you may have fooled yourself, because these sorts of comments suggest it might be the other way.

 

[shockaholic12]

https://www.georgialegalaid.org/resource/when-you-harm-others-intentionally

This is why it can be problematic to look at statutes without looking at the preceding law that they further detail.

That says that all such injuries that occur when the person attempts to escape are the liability of the wrongdoer. So the man who ran at the pedestrian using a deadly weapon as a means to restrict his escape would be liable for any injuries that occurred when Arbery attempted to disarm him to allow his escape. At this point you're posting things that prove the self-defense angle you've struggled to make all day is completely bogus.

 

[BEER]

Yes it does. As soon as he pointed the shotgun at him, he feared for his life and had every right to do anything he deemed necessary to disarm him. Hence the jogging for 4 minutes and nobody is shot, seconds after the son gets out and points the shotgun someone is shot. All of that is on the son.

I'm 182302% that you can definitely claim self defense after being chased through a neighborhood by armed men who eventually cut you off to confront you with guns.

Edit: Well you could, if the good ol' boys hadn't fucking murdered you.

 

[Madmick]

That says that all such injuries that occur when the person attempts to escape are the liability of the wrongdoer. So the man who ran at the pedestrian using a deadly weapon as a means to restrict his escape would be liable for any injuries that occurred when Arbery attempted to disarm him to allow his escape. At this point you're posting things that prove the self-defense angle you've struggled to make all day is completely bogus.

The point of that citation was to demonstrate it isn't a false imprisonment.

For that to qualify he would have to have been detained in a bounded area. For example, if they had detained or confined him in a room, then it would have been false imprisonment. He was on a public road. That's why this crime doesn't apply.

 

[LMP]

I literally just did. It's a false arrest.

O.C.G.A. 51-7-4 (2010)
51-7-4. Arrest under civil process of person exempt from such arrest

The willful arrest, under civil process, of a person exempt by law from such arrest shall be deemed malicious until the contrary shall be proved.

Just to make sure we are clear false impressionment can be stacked on the false arrest, and if you force someone to move from one area to another in becomes kidnapping. All these charges can be stacked, even though they read very closely to one another.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Yes it does. As soon as he pointed the shotgun at him, he feared for his life and had every right to do anything he deemed necessary to disarm him. Hence the jogging for 4 minutes and nobody is shot, seconds after the son gets out and points the shotgun someone is shot. All of that is on the son.

Imo he had reason to fear for his life once they started chasing him with weapons. If someone was chasing me with a knife, shouting for me to stop, i'd definitely get the idea that they wanna stab my ass lol. For some reason this doesn't apply to guns? Who the actual fuck wouldn't get freaked out if some dudes in a truck with guns were chasing them around? Pretty much nobody, that's who. There appears to be a desperate need for... some people in here... to compartmentalize the entire sequence of events. I honestly find the whole thing very straightforward. It's really very simple if you are capable of thinking from what was very likely the perspective of the victim.

 

[AgonyandIrony]

It's really very simple if you are capable of thinking from what was very likely the perspective of the victim.

You're asking a lot from Sherfront bro.

 

[BEER]

Imo he had reason to fear for his life once they started chasing him with weapons. If someone was chasing me with a knife, shouting for me to stop, i'd definitely get the idea that they wanna stab my ass lol. For some reason this doesn't apply to guns? Who the actual fuck wouldn't get freaked out if some dudes in a truck with guns were chasing them around? Pretty much nobody, that's who. There appears to be a desperate need for... some people in here... to compartmentalize the entire sequence of events. I honestly find the whole thing very straightforward. It's really very simple if you are capable of thinking from what was very likely the perspective of the victim.

If I chased you into a dead end alley with a baseball bat tell you to stop running, I only way to talk, you throwing the first punch...

If I then smash you three times with the bat, killing you, I'm pretty sure I can't claim self defense.

 

[shockaholic12]

The point of that citation was to demonstrate it isn't a false imprisonment.

For that to qualify he would have to have been detained in a bounded area. For example, if they had detained or confined him in a room, then it would have been false imprisonment. He was on a public road. That's why this crime doesn't apply.

The road has ditches, woods, and private property surrounding it. There's armed men positioned at both ends the roads that are the only truly clear path and when Arbery tries to run around the truck Travis has been spying him like a linebacker and moves to cut his route off. I don't see where you're making a solid argument that Arbery wasn't bound to a very restricted number of places to go where he was chased relentlessly anyway. I don't see where you've shown "bounded area" means you need physical walls around you. A public road is not a bounded area till some idiots toss up armed road blocks on it, then it's not really a normal public road any more is it?

 

[mudflap mike]

Now watch motherfuckers are going to be more upset with me bringing up white supremacists historical links to law enforcement than the fact that the KKK ran the Georgia Beareu of Investigation and infiltrated almost every law enforcement agency in the state lmao.

Oh shit @sickc0d3r I forgot to link the article again.
https://theintercept.com/2020/05/14/georgia-bureau-of-investigation-ahmaud-arbery/

is the gentleman in the purdy white robe wearing a monocle?

 

[LMP]

The road has ditches, woods, and private property surrounding it. There's armed men positioned at both ends the roads that are the only truly clear path and when Arbery tries to run around the truck Travis has been spying him like a linebacker and moves to cut his route off. I don't see where you're making a solid argument that Arbery wasn't bound to a very restricted number of places to go where he was chased relentlessly anyway. I don't see where you've shown "bounded area" means you need physical walls around you. A public road is not a bounded area till some idiots toss up armed road blocks on it, then it's not really a normal public road any more is it?

False arrest, false imprisonment, kidnapping are still all felonies. It wouldn't matter which one they were doing, AA still was within his rights to resist. I believe @Madmick is correct about his point on false arrest vs imprisonment vs kidnapping. It still wouldn't change the felony murder charge, or that the McMichaels couldnt claim self defense in the act of committing a felony, because they were committing aggravated assault already with the firearms.

 

[all caps]

What is convenient about the timing, and how do you think this will make anything better?

It was released at the perfect time to escalate all the arguing. IMO.

Its not going to make anything better. Its going to make everything worse. IMO.

The full bodycam will be released in the coming days and be made to contradict what we see in this cut (<--Im speculating here)

 

[b34stmode]

It was released at the perfect time to escalate all the arguing. IMO.

Its not going to make anything better. Its going to make everything worse. IMO.

The full bodycam will be released in the coming days and be made to contradict what we see in this cut (<--Im speculating here)

Nope its on TMZ. Take them for what they are but they do good reporting. They basically frisked him for being black, then tried to taze him after knowing he didn't have a weapon on him and while he was complying.

https://www.tmz.com/2020/05/18/ahma...-police-taser-frisk-search-gregory-mcmichael/

 

[Madmick]

False arrest, false imprisonment, kidnapping are still all felonies. It wouldn't matter which one they were doing, AA still was within his rights to resist. I believe @Madmick is correct about his point on false arrest vs imprisonment vs kidnapping. It still wouldn't change the felony murder charge, or that the McMichaels couldnt claim self defense in the act of committing a felony, because they were committing aggravated assault already with the firearms.

Personally, I would find it a miscarriage of justice, based on the video, and what we know, if the McMichaels were convicted of 2nd degree homicide, and contrary to the hateful passive-aggressive (or not so passive-aggressive) aspersions of white supremacist thought, which are bewildering as there has never been any indication of a racist intent anywhere, I have thought about it quite a lot from Arbery's perspective. As I posted in the first thread, I find his behavior far more likely to suggest he was guilty, and panicked at the prospect of being investigated, not out of fear for his life.

Yet these are subjective assessments. This is where the legal debate is interesting. Something I wonder that would bear on my assessment is whether someone in Georgia who brandished a weapon at someone, but didn't point it at someone, and didn't verbally threaten to use the weapon, but hindered the movement of that person, has been convicted of aggravated assault. That would set the precedent that even without Arbery's actions the McMichaels are guilty of aggravated assault. Per the letter of the law, that would satisfy Arbery's right to self-defense because Georgia IS a stand your ground state, and only because it is, Arbery would be legally justified to undertake his offensive against Travis.

 

[b34stmode]

Personally, I would find it a miscarriage of justice, based on the video, and what we know, if the McMichaels were convicted of 2nd degree homicide, and contrary to the hateful passive-aggressive (or not so passive-aggressive) aspersions of white supremacist thought, which are bewildering as there has never been any indication of a racist intent anywhere, I have thought about it quite a lot from Arbery's perspective. As I posted in the first thread, I find his behavior far more likely to suggest he was guilty, and panicked at the prospect of being investigated, not out of fear for his life.

Yet these are subjective assessments. This is where the legal debate is interesting. Something I wonder that would bear on my assessment is whether someone in Georgia who brandished a weapon at someone, but didn't point it at someone, and didn't verbally threaten to use the weapon, but hindered the movement of that person, has been convicted of aggravated assault. That would set the precedent that even without Arbery's actions the McMichaels are guilty of aggravated assault. Per the letter of the law, that would satisfy Arbery's right to self-defense because Georgia IS a stand your ground state, and only because it is, Arbery would be legally justified to undertake his offensive against Travis.

The gun was clearly pointed directly at Ahmaud. I posted the video.

 

[Madmick]

The gun was clearly pointed directly at Ahmaud. I posted the video.

The raw video has been shared by many media outlets and posters. It was not.

 

[AgonyandIrony]

is the gentleman in the purdy white robe wearing a monocle?

Oh Jesus. I thought he had a glass eye. The fucking Monopoly Man was even in the KKK.

It was released at the perfect time to escalate all the arguing. IMO.

Its not going to make anything better. Its going to make everything worse. IMO.

The full bodycam will be released in the coming days and be made to contradict what we see in this cut (<--Im speculating here)

It should get worse if these guys aren't brought to justice. If they walk or get a light sentence it is a miscarriage of justice and an over correction is necessary.

 

[BEER]

Personally, I would find it a miscarriage of justice, based on the video, and what we know, if the McMichaels were convicted of 2nd degree homicide, and contrary to the hateful passive-aggressive (or not so passive-aggressive) aspersions of white supremacist thought, which are bewildering as there has never been any indication of a racist intent anywhere, I have thought about it quite a lot from Arbery's perspective. As I posted in the first thread, I find his behavior far more likely to suggest he was guilty, and panicked at the prospect of being investigated, not out of fear for his life.

Yet these are subjective assessments. This is where the legal debate is interesting. Something I wonder that would bear on my assessment is whether someone in Georgia who brandished a weapon at someone, but didn't point it at someone, and didn't verbally threaten to use the weapon, but hindered the movement of that person, has been convicted of aggravated assault. That would set the precedent that even without Arbery's actions the McMichaels are guilty of aggravated assault. Per the letter of the law, that would satisfy Arbery's right to self-defense because Georgia IS a stand your ground state, and only because it is, Arbery would be legally justified to undertake his offensive against Travis.

You keep arguing and arguing and pretending it's a from a legal perspective.

These men chased Ahmaud through a neighborhood and cut him off with brandished firearms.

That alone is felony aggravated assault according to Georgia law. A felony.

So, a felony resulting in death is automatically considered and charged as Murder (Georgia doesn't have degrees of murder; murder is murder).

To make it very clear: The McMichaels committed a felony that resulted in death. That is murder, from any legal perspective.