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

[KnightTemplar]

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?

Only if they could have proven that Arbery posed a legitimate threat to their lives. You can't shoot someone just for stealing(OK, maybe in Texas). Lethal force is only justified if you have grounds to honestly believe your life or the life of someone else is in immediate danger.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

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.

Your posting didn't used to be total dogshit. You don't even try anymore. You're just flinging poo because even you know you sound stupid.

I've explained what was wrong with your previous post. I'll just add that WI is an open carry state. Seeing a gun doesn't give pedo the right to try to take it, no matter what his imagination concocts. And the other attackers can think what they want (one of which testified he saw the mob as the threat to Kyle), since Kyle had done nothing wrong he had the legal right to defend himself.

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?

Posted on page 1. Note that this law has been repealed in response to the case.

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.

 

[bobgeese]

Don't care. Next time, don't be a burglar.

 

[jx820]

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.

I agree with you.

...but an argument has been successfully made in FL (Zimmerman) and TX (Joe Horn) that you can leave a safe situation while the police tell you not to, even if you know the police are on their way, you can chase/confront someone, then shoot them, and a jury will find that it was just.

 

[UFCUCF]

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.

Strange to spend your entire post calling the dude who got murdered names. Aren't the biggest POS in this scenario the murderers by a mile?

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

if he had pulled a gun on them and threatened violence. i.e. if arbery had gunned them all down when they cornered him, that would have been self defense.

 

[Lord_Impaler]

I agree with you.

...but an argument has been successfully made in FL (Zimmerman) and TX (Joe Horn) that you can leave a safe situation while the police tell you not to, even if you know the police are on their way, you can chase/confront someone, then shoot them, and a jury will find that it was just.

I mean I don’t know every state law on the matter, as far as the system of convincing 12 dickheads to believe your lies over the states lies, it is what it is. The object of a trial is to win, not to get to the bottom of what happened. I’m sure a truthful prosecutor or defense attorney would tell you the same.

 

[jx820]

I mean I don’t know every state law on the matter, as far as the system of convincing 12 dickheads to believe your lies over the states lies, it is what it is. The object of a trial is to win, not to get to the bottom of what happened. I’m sure a truthful prosecutor or defense attorney would tell you the same.

Once again, I agree.

 

[MaxMMA]

I agree with you.

...but an argument has been successfully made in FL (Zimmerman) and TX (Joe Horn) that you can leave a safe situation while the police tell you not to, even if you know the police are on their way, you can chase/confront someone, then shoot them, and a jury will find that it was just.

If it's proven that those individuals were engaging in scumbaggery then I'm all for it. I don't know anything about the Aubry case so I won't comment on it, but I hate this idea that as Law abiding citizens and as men, we are just supposed to stand by and let people get away with blatant criminal behavior.

Or that we are supposed to stand by and allow our community to be threatened by vagrants. Again I'm not referring to the Aubry case as I know none of the specifics but as an example.

If there have been break ins and robberies in your neighborhood and then you see some people there you don't recognize, it should be completely natural, rational, and legal to approach them and ask some questions, and if they lunge at you for doing so, then you should be protected by law when you kill them.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

If it's proven that those individuals were engaging in scumbaggery then I'm all for it. I don't know anything about the Aubry case so I won't comment on it, but I hate this idea that as Law abiding citizens and as men, we are just supposed to stand by and let people get away with blatant criminal behavior.

Or that we are supposed to stand by and allow our community to be threatened by vagrants. Again I'm not referring to the Aubry case as I know none of the specifics but as an example.

If there have been break ins and robberies in your neighborhood and then you see some people there you don't recognize, it should be completely natural, rational, and legal to approach them and ask some questions, and if they lunge at you for doing so, then you should be protected by law when you kill them.

You should be able to ask people questions, but you shouldn't be able to do so while pointing guns at them for obvious reasons.

 

[jk7707]

If it's proven that those individuals were engaging in scumbaggery then I'm all for it. I don't know anything about the Aubry case so I won't comment on it, but I hate this idea that as Law abiding citizens and as men, we are just supposed to stand by and let people get away with blatant criminal behavior.

Or that we are supposed to stand by and allow our community to be threatened by vagrants. Again I'm not referring to the Aubry case as I know none of the specifics but as an example.

If there have been break ins and robberies in your neighborhood and then you see some people there you don't recognize, it should be completely natural, rational, and legal to approach them and ask some questions, and if they lunge at you for doing so, then you should be protected by law when you kill them.

Does chasing them around for 5 minutes in a vehicle while armed still count as "approaching them to ask some questions"?

The problem with not waiting for law enforcement in a situation where the person supposedly engaging in "criminal behavior" that's not a direct threat to anyone is that shit can get out of hand quickly and end up like this case with someone dead that shouldn't be.

 

[Mike]

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?

No, not in either case. If they thought he was in the process of trying to seriously harm someone on the property. Which is a significantly different scenario.

 

[MaxMMA]

Does chasing them around for 5 minutes in a vehicle while armed still count as "approaching them to ask some questions"?

The problem with not waiting for law enforcement in a situation where the person supposedly engaging in "criminal behavior" that's not a direct threat to anyone is that shit can get out of hand quickly and end up like this case with someone dead that shouldn't be.

This is exactly why I said I'm not commenting on this case. I don't know anything about it.

 

[jk7707]

This is exactly why I said I'm not commenting on this case. I don't know anything about it.

Then why are you posting in a thread that is specifically about this case?

 

[MaxMMA]

You should be able to ask people questions, but you shouldn't be able to do so while pointing guns at them for obvious reasons.

Sure but having a weapon on you when you approach them shouldn't be immediate grounds for a confrontation, was the gun pointed at the dude when he lunged for it? Idk.

If he really was snooping around and casing out homes out then I believe it is the responsibility of the community and the individuals in the community to confront this individual.

If he was really just going for a jog as site seeing (I'm an urban/rural explorer myself) then obviously that changes everything.

 

[jx820]

I hate this idea that as Law abiding citizens and as men, we are just supposed to stand by and let people get away with blatant criminal behavior.

If there have been break ins and robberies in your neighborhood and then you see some people there you don't recognize, it should be completely natural, rational, and legal to approach them and ask some questions, and if they lunge at you for doing so, then you should be protected by law when you kill them.

I think there are a lot of options between doing nothing and executing someone without charge or trial at your personal discretion. In the case of Zimmerman, Treyvon Martin was doing nothing wrong. It wasn't that he could abide watching a crime without interveneing. Martin hadn't commited a crime. He couldn't abide a person walking.

I also wonder if you'd agree with your second argument if it were turned around. Would you say that it's acceptable to you, that you should have to justify your presence at gunpoint to anyone who decides that your private business is now thiers? I personally don't like the idea that if a maniac is chasing me with a gun I should stop and try to appease them, ot that I owe the maniac some explaination. What if they suffer paranoia and can't be appeased by logic. Should I just die so the unelected sherriff of this block can rest easy? This is the EXACT reason why we have police.

 

[MaxMMA]

Then why are you posting in a thread that is specifically about this case?

I was voicing my opinion to the poster that i quoted. Does anyone do anything in it's entirety anymore? Jesus, way too many short attention spans out there.

 

[GolovKing]

You should be able to ask people questions, but you shouldn't be able to do so while pointing guns at them for obvious reasons.

Did they actually point guns at Arbury before he rushed them?

 

[Mike]

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.

This is hardly the only case like that dude. People get arrested and charged for shooting people over property all the time. Under the law no, you are NOT allowed to defend your property against trespass with lethal force. When you guys argue that you're arguing frustration against thieves, not the law.

Petty crime sucks but you can't just blast them. See the threads about the rampant shoplifting in urban areas. Can't just blast those guys either.

 

[MaxMMA]

I think there are a lot of options between doing nothing and executing someone without charge or trial at your personal discretion. In the case of Zimmerman, Treyvon Martin was doing nothing wrong. It wasn't that he could abide watching a crime without interveneing. Martin hadn't commited a crime. He couldn't abide a person walking.

I also wonder if you'd agree with your second argument if it were turned around. Would you say that it's acceptable to you, that you should have to justify your presence at gunpoint to anyone who decides that your private business is now thiers? I personally don't like the idea that if a maniac is chasing me with a gun I should stop and try to appease them, ot that I owe the maniac some explaination. What if they suffer paranoia and can't be appeased by logic. Should I just die so the unelected sherriff of this block can rest easy? This is the EXACT reason why we have police.

Not sure what that has to do with anything, if I'm on my property it's my property. You have to have my permission to be there and if you don't you'll be removed. Physically if needed.