Law What would have made the Ahmaud Arbery shooting justifiable in your eyes?

[GolovKing]

Had they been able to prove that Arbery was in fact stealing would that have made it justifiable?

Had the three men been the actual owners of the house would it then be justifiable? Or is something like this only justifiable on one's own property?

 

[Protectandserve]

Even if he had stolen property on him still wouldn't make it justified.

A bunch of white dudes chasing a black man armed in a truck in the south has some seriously bad historical correlations behind it.

 

[fedoriswar37]

Uhh. If they were law enforcement trying to apprehend a criminal with a weapon.

 

[panem-et-circenses]

No, killing someone for being at a construction site, whether they’ve stolen or not, is wrong on so many levels.

 

[Rygu]

Really, nothing to be honest. They murdered him.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

You can't chase down and shoot someone for stealing. You could follow them and call the police though, that would be justifiable.

 

[GolovKing]

Even if he had stolen property on him still wouldn't make it justified.

A bunch of white dudes chasing a black man armed in a truck in the south has some seriously bad historical correlations behind it.

I would argue that if he had actually stolen from someone and then proceeded to attack them after being confronted most courts would argue in favor of the homeowner. Certainly, in TX they would. I mean Joe Horn was cleared after killing his neighbors burglars and they didn't even attack him, he just shot them before they could finish getting away

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Only if it was their primary residence and Aubrey forcibly entered. Following someone in public you suspect has stolen who you had ample opportunity to evade if you thought they were going to attack is not even close to being an excuse. Aubrey had more of a right to defend himself than the perps did.

 

[oldshadow]

If they could have proved they were justified in their fear of great bodily harm or death or rape.

Of they had just followed him with no contact and he had just gone after one of them and was trying to take the gun after him going to them not them coming to him.

 

[MicroBrew]

Had they been able to prove that Arbery was in fact stealing would that have made it justifiable?

Had the three men been the actual owners of the house would it then be justifiable? Or is something like this only justifiable on one's own property?

Even if he had stolen something, isn't deadly force only allowed if you / your family / innocent peoples' lives are in danger?

 

[Lord_Impaler]

An immediate deadly threat to your life or if someone forcibly enters your home/property. Obviously if you chase after someone that argument can’t be made.

 

[Project 2501]

Running towards someone with a gun is pretty justifiable imo. Dude was def not jogging, who the hell jogs in timberlands boots? Also there's several videos of him already confirming he was most def a scumbag and had a bad rep. Not only was he a bad rep, he was taking a bunch of youngsters under his wing to steal shit alongside him. Dude was a pos through and through, therefore he will soon be cannoinzed.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Had the three men been the actual owners of the house would it then be justifiable? Or is something like this only justifiable on one's own property?

According to the Rittenhouse verdict you don't need to own the property you are defending (or even be in the same state as your own property) to kill a guy if you think that guy is trying to take your gun.

Maybe if Arbery had been a convicted sex offender people could have seen the upside to his murder.

 

[gluehuffer1776]

it was justifiable in my eyes. ahmed tried to grab their guns.

 

[KantoTerror]

Not justifiable...until he becomes an assailant who goes after you with the intention of harming you or worst, you can't shoot him. These men we're looking for an excuse to shoot him, can't find any, shoot him anyway...

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

As I recall, the citizen's arrest law was having personally witnessed, or had immediate knowledge that a felony had occurred. And the perpetrator was fleeing the scene.

 

[ultramanhyata]

If they could have proved they were justified in their fear of great bodily harm or death or rape.

You don't think a guy literally trying to wrestle your shotgun away from you would create a legitimate fear of bodily harm??

 

[TardStrong]

If arbery had a gun and was threatening them with it

Arbery would have had to been the aggressor. Blocking his path and confronting him with guns though I am sure he felt threatened

You can't start the confrontation and be armed then claim self defense. You are egging the person on.

Rittenhouse was being chased and they to diffuse the situation. These guys were making the situation worse by blocking his path while holding guns

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

According to the Rittenhouse verdict you don't need to own the property you are defending (or even be in the same state as your own property) to kill a guy if you think that guy is trying to take your gun.

You say so much stupid shit when trying to sound clever.

It's about who was being the aggressor, as defined by the law. Had these fools been making a lawful citizen's arrest then they would not be labelled aggressors. Since they weren't, they were unlawfully putting someone in fear for the life. Whereas with Rittenhouse it had nothing to do with the property and everything to do with him being chased down and attacked.

 

[oldshadow]

You don't think a guy literally trying to wrestle your shotgun away from you would create a legitimate fear of bodily harm??

It depends if you gave him justified case to believe you were going to try and shoot .

That's were I think in this case their self defense case fell apart.

The prosecution convinced the jury that he went after the gun in self defense.