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

[Day Drinking]

If he was the aggressor. If they had reason to try for a citizens arrest, and had actually tried to do one. If they were the police.

So if the whole thing was totally different basically.

 

[DeathIsHere]

It's wrong to shoot people in broad daylight for stealing. That's not right.

But the gun was not shot until Ahmaud grabbed the gun

So, what you're saying is that if somebody in a truck chases you because they have a hunch you stole something without any actual proof (because you didn't steal anything and they admitted they didn't know if he'd committed a crime period), repeatedly cuts you off and prevents you from running away, and then draws a shotgun on you while their father yells "Stop or I'll blow your ****ing head off!", the only thing you can do in that situation is to stop and comply with them? You don't have a right to defend yourself here from this behavior? Am I understanding this correctly?

When do you think somebody would have the right to defend themselves in Arbery's case? Is there ever a case where he could have defended himself? Or was the assumption that he committed a crime enough to mean he has to comply with anything up to the point he could be kidnapped or shot by people who had no authority to be detaining him and were already making threats of violence against him? I'm genuinely curious here, because that's an awful precedent you seem to be arguing for.

 

[Lead]

Some states even require you to try to evacuate your house if you are being robbed rather than confront the burglar. I don’t know what situation would’ve made them legally in the right but whatever it is, it isn’t close to what happened there.

 

[phoenixikki]

But it was.

 

[jk7707]

But it was.

Not according to the jury...or anyone with an IQ higher than potato.

 

[ultramanhyata]

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

You do not understand the legal basis for the Rittenhouse self-defense verdict.

And, again, Arbery charged McMichael. McMichael was not "chasing" Arbery before the wrestling for the shotgun began.

 

[jeremyemilio]

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 defending himself when he shot, not property. He was being actively attacked each and every time he pulled the trigger. He also pulled the trigger at literally the last possible second available to him. And it's all on video. These are very different cases and that's why you have very different verdicts.

Think of it this way:

The entire time that Rosenbaum is chasing Rittenhouse across the parking lot, Rittenhouse is making every attempt and doing everything in his power to make sure that no one gets hurt. Not just himself, but Rosenbaum as well. He has a rifle with him. He doesn't have to run. He can protect his own safety without running. He runs to protect Rosenbaum, even as Rosenbaum is trying to attack him. That entire time, Rosenbaum has it in his power to end things without anyone being harmed. If he stops chasing, everyone goes home and nobody gets hurt. Not him, not Rittenhouse. But he pushed it until forcing Rittenhouse into a choice between risking being harmed and killed himself, or pulling the trigger and harming (and killing) the person attacking him. Rosenbaum pushed that decision on Rittenhouse. The jury saw that and acquitted him.

The Arbery case is the exact opposite. Like Rosenbaum, the three men chasing him could have stopped chasing at any time, and no one gets hurt. Everyone goes home alive. Arbery (like Rittenhouse) did everything in his power to escape the situation without anyone getting hurt. But the men push the action until they force Arbery into a decision of fighting for his life. Unfortunately, unlike Rittenhouse, Arbery did not have a gun of his own and ended up the one who was killed. The jury saw that and that's why they found those men guilty.

The facts of the case itself matter. You can't just go around making decisions of whether a person should be convicted of murder and thrown in jail for long periods of time, or be acquitted and allowed to walk free, based entirely on what you think of their politics. There are an awful lot of people who seem to think that's an okay way to go about things. It's pretty damned frightening.

Let me state that more clearly. The opinion you stated above isn't simply wrongheaded. It's terrifying.

 

[Danger Dave]

I didn't really follow this case but what if he was just a construction worker that forgot his toolbox at a site he was working? What if his friend called him up and said "I forgot to grab my wrench, can you swing by and pick it up?"

I am a hardcore republican, Forever Trumper, Kansas City dweller and I think these 3 guys got what they deserved. People like this make gun owners look bad.

This is kind of the exact same as the Rittenhouse case with differing results....

Rittenhouse:

3 people attacking and shooting at 1 person running away. Victim kills or injures all of the attackers.

This case:

3 people attacking and shooting at 1 person running away. 3 attackers kill the victim.

Edit: Know what might have saved the victim in this case? If he had a gun.

 

[ultramanhyata]

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.

This "take" is proof positive you lack even a shred of rational objectivity and can only see what happened in Kenosha through a political, Us vs. Them lens.

I am glad the Rittenhouse verdict went the way it did. As there is no doubt in my mind that had it gone the other way those who share your warped perception of the motivations of the actors involved in the events of that evening would have sought vengeance in the form of bloodshed.

 

[phoenixikki]

Not according to the jury...or anyone with an IQ higher than potato.

Fuck around, find out.

 

[jeremyemilio]

You do not understand the legal basis for the Rittenhouse self-defense verdict.

And, again, Arbery charged McMichael. McMichael was not "chasing" Arbery before the wrestling for the shotgun began.

Of course he was. He chased him in his truck. With a gun. With the help of two other men and one other vehicle. Cornered him and gave him nowhere to go, also with the help of two other men and two vehicles. And, unlike Rittenhouse, made no attempt to run after forcing Arbery into a spot where he felt he had no avenue for flight and so he'd need to fight his way out.

You really need to give your head a shake and ask what it is you're up to when you start spewing the absolutely unfounded and without merit case of the McMichaels' defense team as though they may have had a point... just so you can try to win an argument about why someone else should be in jail just because you aren't down with his politics.

Like I said. Terrifying.

 

[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.

Thought about it more and even in this scenario no. Just sounds like Ahmed would have been justified in shooting them dead. I really can’t imagine why anyone thinks this one is ok.

 

[Papi Chulo]

So, what you're saying is that if somebody in a truck chases you because they have a hunch you stole something without any actual proof (because you didn't steal anything and they admitted they didn't know if he'd committed a crime period), repeatedly cuts you off and prevents you from running away, and then draws a shotgun on you while their father yells "Stop or I'll blow your ****ing head off!", the only thing you can do in that situation is to stop and comply with them? You don't have a right to defend yourself here from this behavior? Am I understanding this correctly?

When do you think somebody would have the right to defend themselves in Arbery's case? Is there ever a case where he could have defended himself? Or was the assumption that he committed a crime enough to mean he has to comply with anything up to the point he could be kidnapped or shot by people who had no authority to be detaining him and were already making threats of violence against him? I'm genuinely curious here, because that's an awful precedent you seem to be arguing for.

Ahmaud was inside someone's home that wasn't his. He is morally obligated to stop and explain why he sprinted out of that house to the neighbors

 

[maximus__]

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?

If Arbery had gone into their homes and rushed them when they were armed with the shotgun to defend themselvesor if Arbery had chased them for 5 mins in a vehicle before cornering them and then went for the gun.

Every argument that made Rittenhouses trial self defence for all accounts is the reason why this was a guilty verdict.

They chased an unarmed guy in trucks with guns yelling threats to shoot him and tried to call it a lawful arrest. They cornered him after that and expected him to wait around.
If they were screaming about blowing his head off whilst he was running do you really think they suddenly started saying please and thankyou out of no where or do you think that Arbery likely thought he was about to get shot by some lynch mob? When he tried to leave, they stopped him and he ended up getting killed.

Fair to say Arbery had a self defence claim after repeated threats to kill him, being hit with a car and held at gunpoint. The other guys were just hillbilly vigilantes from how it looks.

 

[DeathIsHere]

Ahmaud was inside someone's home that wasn't his. He is morally obligated to stop and explain why he sprinted out of that house to the neighbors

They didn't know that. They admitted to the responding officers that they didn't know if he'd done anything, they only saw him running down the road and assumed he was fleeing from a crime. They suggested that the officers go knock on doors to find out if he'd been trespassing because they didn't know.

Simply having a suspicion you may have committed a crime doesn't give anybody the right to detain you, especially at gunpoint, it's disturbing to me that you think otherwise.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Rittenhouse was defending himself when he shot, not property. He was being actively attacked each and every time he pulled the trigger. He also pulled the trigger at literally the last possible second available to him.

Read my last post. Engage with the facts in the two cases or please refrain from replying to me. Thanks.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

This "take" is proof positive you lack even a shred of rational objectivity and can only see what happened in Kenosha through a political, Us vs. Them lens.

I am glad the Rittenhouse verdict went the way it did. As there is no doubt in my mind that had it gone the other way those who share your warped perception of the motivations of the actors involved in the events of that evening would have sought vengeance in the form of bloodshed.

Keep stinking it up.

 

[jk7707]

Fuck around, find out.

No need to find out. We already know you're potato level.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Of course he was. He chased him in his truck. With a gun. With the help of two other men and one other vehicle. Cornered him and gave him nowhere to go, also with the help of two other men and two vehicles. And, unlike Rittenhouse, made no attempt to run after forcing Arbery into a spot where he felt he had no avenue for flight and so he'd need to fight his way out.

You really need to give your head a shake and ask what it is you're up to when you start spewing the absolutely unfounded and without merit case of the McMichaels' defense team as though they may have had a point... just so you can try to win an argument about why someone else should be in jail just because you aren't down with his politics.

Like I said. Terrifying.

Dude's obviously trolling. He isn't as retarded as he'd have to be to honestly believe what he's saying.

 

[Cariñito]

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.

He didnt have Timberland shoes on. That was made up