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

[tenniswhiz]

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?

None of the above.

You can’t shoot someone for stealing 15 minutes after the fact on the street.

If they owned the house, they can’t shoot someone for stealing 15 minutes later on the street.

You can’t shoot someone for trespassing on your property.

It’s called murder.

 

[GolovKing]

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

His life was definitely in danger when Arbury attacked him. Just seems the law there ruled that legally they were wrong to initiate that conflict in the first place. But at some point you are always justified in defending your own life right? Say that Ahmaud Arbury succeeded in wrestling the gun away and pointed it as his head then his buddy shot Arbury from behind and saved him? Would the courts wave their right to defend themselves in that situation too?

 

[nostradumbass]

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...

That is literally what happened. He punched one of them and tried to wrestle his gun away.

The problem isn't whether it was a life or death situation, it clearly was, it's whether they were justified in creating the situation by stopping him, which legally they were not. It sucks that you have to just watch someone you know has robbed a place several times just run away, but that's the law.

 

[ultramanhyata]

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.

I'm sure in your demented, tribal brain you think the "leftists" who were trying to stop Rittenhouse did not really believe he and his AR posed a deadly threat to them and others in the vicinity. They just wanted to assault a "patriot" for the lol's.

 

[GolovKing]

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.

Rittenhouse was fleeing though and not trying to initiate conflict

 

[HockeyBjj]

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.

Even without the racial angle, they were chasing him down which means he’s not a threat to them at all

 

[SummerStriker]

From the little I listened to the case, it sounds like what would have made it justifiable would be if the lynch mob had immediate, personal knowledge of the victim committing a felony. Since they didn't, they were just crazy, hillbilly stalkers brandishing guns.

 

[Papi Chulo]

The shooting was justifiable when Ahmaud grabbed the gun. That's the only reason he got shot.

He sprinted out of the house, never stopped to explain why he was snooping around in there

 

[ultramanhyata]

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

According to the testimony Arbery began charging McMichael when the shotgun was still inside the truck. McMichael said he only dove into the truck for the gun after first holding up his hands and yelling "stop!" But Arbery just kept coming forward.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Rittenhouse was fleeing though and not trying to initiate conflict

McMichael was standing his ground. He wasn't aggressively moving towards Arbery with a shotgun in his hands. (According to his testimony.)

 

[GolovKing]

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.

What makes something a lawful citizens arrest? Had they positively identified him as stealing property would that have justified their action or is that not a serious enough crime?

 

[Blayt7hh]

Him pulling a gun them maybe? I dunno if that even justifies it in my mind since they had already cornered him with a gun. You can’t hold someone at gunpoint because you suspect them of a crime. That is not fucking self defense.

 

[HockeyBjj]

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.

This is a shit take

to compare to the Rittenhouse game, arbery would have had to threaten to kill the armed guys and then chased them while they tried to run away

instead the armed assholes chased the fleeing guy in a truck until they trapped him

huge difference

 

[MicroBrew]

His life was definitely in danger when Arbury attacked him. Just seems the law there ruled that legally they were wrong to initiate that conflict in the first place. But at some point you are always justified in defending your own life right? Say that Ahmaud Arbury succeeded in wrestling the gun away and pointed it as his head then his buddy shot Arbury from behind and saved him? Would the courts wave their right to defend themselves in that situation too?

His (Travis) life was in danger if Arbery had gotten the gun but they (McMichaels and Roddie) instigated the confrontation. They can defend their life but they should also be sent away for life, for murder.

Here's a hypothetical:
I can't confront someone , threaten them / brandish a gun at them and when they start beating me up , pull out a gun and kill them , then claim self defense. Sure my life would be in danger but if I am left off the hook then anyone can instigate confrontation and murder people when the instigator's life is in danger.

 

[nostradumbass]

I'm sure in your demented, tribal brain you think the "leftists" who were trying to stop Rittenhouse did not really believe he and his AR posed a deadly threat to them and others in the vicinity. They just wanted to assault a "patriot" for the lol's.

"Trying to stop him". Lol, is that what you call a serial child rapist screaming "I'm going to fucking kill you" and trying to corner a kid in a parking lot, and his career criminal buddies shouting "get him, cranium him" with their own illegal hand guns, swinging skateboards at his head and jump kicking him when he's trying to go to the police? The child rapist actually was trying to stop him... from putting out the dumpster fire he was trying to push into a gas station to blow up a city block.

Your mental illness is showing again.

 

[Papi Chulo]

It sucks that you have to just watch someone you know has robbed a place several times just run away, but that's the law.

The precedent is set, you get robbed or your property scoped out, don't grab your gun and don't try to stop them from leaving, because then they are threatened. If they attack you, then you are going to prison.

 

[MicroBrew]

The shooting was justifiable when Ahmaud grabbed the gun. That's the only reason he got shot.

He sprinted out of the house, never stopped to explain why he was snooping around in there

He doesn't need to explain anything them, but ofcoure you would defend them. Your post is very quintessentially Alt-Right.

 

[Papi Chulo]

He doesn't need to explain anything them

Ahmaud is obligated to explain to them why he was snooping inside a house that was not his. This is why the Left lives on a different planet than the right.

 

[MicroBrew]

Ahmaud is obligated to explain to them why he was snooping inside a house that was not his. This is why the Left lives on a different planet than the right.

No he isn't. You righties think every minority or anyone not to your liking needs to bow down to you and act subservient. It wasn't their house and they didn't witness anything. The right lives in a Darwinian world, where basal animal instincts and tribalism is celebrated.

 

[koquerelle]

If Arbery had a weapon and put the inbreds down.