3 men charged with federal hate crimes in killing of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia

[Godboy]

I don't believe he was "jogging." I believe he was trespassing, and fled.

Dont forget the attempted assault too that got him killed by the son.

Yeah, um, I'm also not buying that it's "attempted assault" when he was unarmed and the other men had guns and were illegally detaining him on a street. Not saying I'm not open to more evidence, but so far I haven't heard any that doesn't make me see that as "self-defense".

They werent detaining him for no reason. Also, when you are facing a potential criminal and you are holding a gun, if he charges at you and attacks you, its a pretty fucking good sign that he is not just some friendly "jogger". People have a right to defend themselves against violent attackers.

Okay, give me a good and legal reason for non-police civilians to detain anyone on the street with guns. Give me sufficient and legal reasons they were justified as treating him as a "potential criminal". Tell me what legal grounds they had for doing what they did that made his behavior "assault" and not self-defense. I can assure you that if a group of men with guns detained ME on the street, and I thought hitting one of them and taking his gun would allow me to escape, I'd do exactly that, and I would think you would, as well. And that doesn't automatically make either of us a criminal. People DO have a right to defend themselves against violent attackers . . . so tell me how that's not what Arberry was doing.

If my facts are correct, they thought he was a burglar. You can make citizen arrests.

I know that if someone was yelling at you to stop, you would. If they were wearing masks and yelling "get on your knees motherfucker", it might be a different story, but in this case he evaded them, they told him to stop, he keeps going, they tell him to stop, he keeps going and after quite some time of not shooting him, they cut him off. He had no reason to believe they were truly dangerous at that point. These clearly werent highway robbers. In fact, he was so certain that the guy wasnt going to shoot him that he veered from his path and assaulted a man with a shotgun.

If MY facts are correct, they thought he was a burglar, but didn't have any actual evidence beyond their personal suspicions.

I know that if someone was yelling at me to stop, I'd pause long enough to determine if they had a right to yell at me to stop. If not, I'd continue on my fucking way, and you're damned right I'd evade them if I could. I'm still waiting for you to tell me how that would make me a criminal who deserved to be shot, or how it would make THEM "acting in self-defense" for shooting me.

What do you mean, "he had no reason to believe they were truly dangerous"? They were total strangers holding guns and detaining him with no actual authority to do so. Would YOU feel safe and in no danger in his place? "These clearly weren't highway robbers"? Clear in what way? And don't even start on that "They were THIS PARTICULAR THREAT, therefore they weren't any threat at all" crap. I don't buy that sort of cherrypicked debate parameter from anyone.

"In fact, he was so certain the guy wasn't going to shoot him that he veered from his path". Yeah, or maybe he wasn't certain at all that they weren't going to shoot him, and THAT'S why he thought he needed to disarm one of them.

Why are you brushing over his attack on the son? They yelled at him to stop a bunch of times, and they had guns and clearly suspected him of a crime, but they never got physical with him, so why did he attack the son? Why shouldnt the son be able to claim self defense when he clearly was defending himself from an attacker?

 

[Godboy]

The killers may well walk.

By the law of self defense they should....defending your life with lethal force is lawful.

No the law of self defense doesn’t say that. Idiot.

Would you quote the Georgia law on self defense?

Here it is...https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-3/article-2/16-3-212010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES :: CHAPTER 3 - DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS :: ARTICLE 2 - JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE :: § 16-3-21 - Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution

And you can’t claim self defense when committing a felony. Otherwise every armed robber would claim self defense when they shoot the clerk.

Citizen arrests arent illegal.

 

[Godboy]

Another black scumbag rewarded.

And three more cracker assholes heading up the river.

I doubt that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't believe he was "jogging." I believe he was trespassing, and fled.

Dont forget the attempted assault too that got him killed by the son.

Yeah, um, I'm also not buying that it's "attempted assault" when he was unarmed and the other men had guns and were illegally detaining him on a street. Not saying I'm not open to more evidence, but so far I haven't heard any that doesn't make me see that as "self-defense".

They werent detaining him for no reason. Also, when you are facing a potential criminal and you are holding a gun, if he charges at you and attacks you, its a pretty fucking good sign that he is not just some friendly "jogger". People have a right to defend themselves against violent attackers.

They never detained him or attempted to detain him.

That doesn't even jibe with the statement initially provided by McMichael Sr.

It does not matter what the McMihcals may or may not have said....what matters is what the McMichals and the suspect actually did.

Again.....watch the video....posted more than once....what one sees is ahmaud jogging towards the truck running around the right side of the truck and then veering left to attacks the Macmichael son with the shotgun....no attempt was made to detain or arrest him.

Yeah, it actually DOES matter what the McMichaels said to the cops when they were arrested. Seriously, who really thinks, "Yeah, well, they gave statements to the cops, but that doesn't matter" is a thing?

Possibly you should consider that I DID watch the video, and I still disagree with you, and don't insult me with this sort of arrogance again.

I'll tell you what I see in that video: I see an unarmed man on foot, being chased by an armed man in a truck. I see the unarmed man run up against another truck with two armed men in it, he runs around the passenger side of the truck, the driver gets out with his firearm and comes around the front of the truck at him, and at that point, the unarmed man attacks the armed driver in self-defense, whereupon the armed driver, aka the assailant, shoots the unarmed man.

This is also consistent with the statements made by the assailants to the police, who said they were trying to stop him, and that the truck was pulled in front of him to try to stop him.

So don't try to tell me they weren't trying to detain him. I don't like it when people try to piss down my leg and insist it's rain.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The killers may well walk.

By the law of self defense they should....defending your life with lethal force is lawful.

No the law of self defense doesn’t say that. Idiot.

Would you quote the Georgia law on self defense?

Here it is...https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-3/article-2/16-3-212010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES :: CHAPTER 3 - DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS :: ARTICLE 2 - JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE :: § 16-3-21 - Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution

And you can’t claim self defense when committing a felony. Otherwise every armed robber would claim self defense when they shoot the clerk.

Citizen arrests arent illegal.

I'm tired of hearing, "It was a citizen's arrest!" Here's the law in Georgia on citizen's arrest:

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

I hate to break it to you, but "He looks like the guy we think was robbing houses weeks ago" does NOT constitute "offense committed within his presence or within his immediate knowledge" and it also isn't "reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion."

 

[Cecilie1200]

Another black scumbag rewarded.

And three more cracker assholes heading up the river.

I doubt that.

I don't doubt it. These testosterone-poisoned redneck vigilante-wannabes make the whole state look bad. I don't see the jury taking kindly to that, unless their defense attorney has a shitload more evidence than we're seeing now.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

The killers may well walk.

By the law of self defense they should....defending your life with lethal force is lawful.

No the law of self defense doesn’t say that. Idiot.

Would you quote the Georgia law on self defense?

Here it is...https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-3/article-2/16-3-212010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES :: CHAPTER 3 - DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS :: ARTICLE 2 - JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE :: § 16-3-21 - Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution

And you can’t claim self defense when committing a felony. Otherwise every armed robber would claim self defense when they shoot the clerk.

Laughable......there was no felony committed....everything the McMichaels did was completely legal....you watch too much t.v. girl.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

The killers may well walk.

By the law of self defense they should....defending your life with lethal force is lawful.

No the law of self defense doesn’t say that. Idiot.

Would you quote the Georgia law on self defense?

Here it is...https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-3/article-2/16-3-212010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES :: CHAPTER 3 - DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS :: ARTICLE 2 - JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE :: § 16-3-21 - Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution

And you can’t claim self defense when committing a felony. Otherwise every armed robber would claim self defense when they shoot the clerk.

Citizen arrests arent illegal.

I'm tired of hearing, "It was a citizen's arrest!" Here's the law in Georgia on citizen's arrest:

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

I hate to break it to you, but "He looks like the guy we think was robbing houses weeks ago" does NOT constitute "offense committed within his presence or within his immediate knowledge" and it also isn't "reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion."

There was no citizens arrest made.

was no attempt even to make a citizens arrest.....if you are going to come on here and open your piehole than try and keep up with the evidence.....the relevant part of this case is on video....that video has been posted on here at least twice.....yet obviously you have not watched it....go now and watch it and then report back to us.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Another black scumbag rewarded.

And three more cracker assholes heading up the river.

and another dumbass watches cnn and thinks he got the low down on this case bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa where do these fools come from???...lots of villages must be missing their idiots as in they are on here saying stupid shit.

 

[Godboy]

I don't believe he was "jogging." I believe he was trespassing, and fled.

Dont forget the attempted assault too that got him killed by the son.

Yeah, um, I'm also not buying that it's "attempted assault" when he was unarmed and the other men had guns and were illegally detaining him on a street. Not saying I'm not open to more evidence, but so far I haven't heard any that doesn't make me see that as "self-defense".

They werent detaining him for no reason. Also, when you are facing a potential criminal and you are holding a gun, if he charges at you and attacks you, its a pretty fucking good sign that he is not just some friendly "jogger". People have a right to defend themselves against violent attackers.

Okay, give me a good and legal reason for non-police civilians to detain anyone on the street with guns. Give me sufficient and legal reasons they were justified as treating him as a "potential criminal". Tell me what legal grounds they had for doing what they did that made his behavior "assault" and not self-defense. I can assure you that if a group of men with guns detained ME on the street, and I thought hitting one of them and taking his gun would allow me to escape, I'd do exactly that, and I would think you would, as well. And that doesn't automatically make either of us a criminal. People DO have a right to defend themselves against violent attackers . . . so tell me how that's not what Arberry was doing.

If my facts are correct, they thought he was a burglar. You can make citizen arrests.

I know that if someone was yelling at you to stop, you would. If they were wearing masks and yelling "get on your knees motherfucker", it might be a different story, but in this case he evaded them, they told him to stop, he keeps going, they tell him to stop, he keeps going and after quite some time of not shooting him, they cut him off. He had no reason to believe they were truly dangerous at that point. These clearly werent highway robbers. In fact, he was so certain that the guy wasnt going to shoot him that he veered from his path and assaulted a man with a shotgun.

If MY facts are correct, they thought he was a burglar, but didn't have any actual evidence beyond their personal suspicions.

I know that if someone was yelling at me to stop, I'd pause long enough to determine if they had a right to yell at me to stop. If not, I'd continue on my fucking way, and you're damned right I'd evade them if I could. I'm still waiting for you to tell me how that would make me a criminal who deserved to be shot, or how it would make THEM "acting in self-defense" for shooting me.

What do you mean, "he had no reason to believe they were truly dangerous"? They were total strangers holding guns and detaining him with no actual authority to do so. Would YOU feel safe and in no danger in his place? "These clearly weren't highway robbers"? Clear in what way? And don't even start on that "They were THIS PARTICULAR THREAT, therefore they weren't any threat at all" crap. I don't buy that sort of cherrypicked debate parameter from anyone.

"In fact, he was so certain the guy wasn't going to shoot him that he veered from his path". Yeah, or maybe he wasn't certain at all that they weren't going to shoot him, and THAT'S why he thought he needed to disarm one of them.

Why are you brushing over his attack on the son? They yelled at him to stop a bunch of times, and they had guns and clearly suspected him of a crime, but they never got physical with him, so why did he attack the son? Why shouldnt the son be able to claim self defense when he clearly was defending himself from an attacker?

Bump.

Care to adress this post?

 

[Dana7360]

I don't believe he was "jogging." I believe he was trespassing, and fled.

If you believe Arbery was trespassing, why didn’t you advocate for those men to follow the law and call the police?

Why do you believe that kidnapping and death without due process is the proper action to take to someone trespassing?

Why do you believe that trespassing is an excuse to kidnap and murder a person?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't believe he was "jogging." I believe he was trespassing, and fled.

Dont forget the attempted assault too that got him killed by the son.

Yeah, um, I'm also not buying that it's "attempted assault" when he was unarmed and the other men had guns and were illegally detaining him on a street. Not saying I'm not open to more evidence, but so far I haven't heard any that doesn't make me see that as "self-defense".

They werent detaining him for no reason. Also, when you are facing a potential criminal and you are holding a gun, if he charges at you and attacks you, its a pretty fucking good sign that he is not just some friendly "jogger". People have a right to defend themselves against violent attackers.

Okay, give me a good and legal reason for non-police civilians to detain anyone on the street with guns. Give me sufficient and legal reasons they were justified as treating him as a "potential criminal". Tell me what legal grounds they had for doing what they did that made his behavior "assault" and not self-defense. I can assure you that if a group of men with guns detained ME on the street, and I thought hitting one of them and taking his gun would allow me to escape, I'd do exactly that, and I would think you would, as well. And that doesn't automatically make either of us a criminal. People DO have a right to defend themselves against violent attackers . . . so tell me how that's not what Arberry was doing.

If my facts are correct, they thought he was a burglar. You can make citizen arrests.

I know that if someone was yelling at you to stop, you would. If they were wearing masks and yelling "get on your knees motherfucker", it might be a different story, but in this case he evaded them, they told him to stop, he keeps going, they tell him to stop, he keeps going and after quite some time of not shooting him, they cut him off. He had no reason to believe they were truly dangerous at that point. These clearly werent highway robbers. In fact, he was so certain that the guy wasnt going to shoot him that he veered from his path and assaulted a man with a shotgun.

If MY facts are correct, they thought he was a burglar, but didn't have any actual evidence beyond their personal suspicions.

I know that if someone was yelling at me to stop, I'd pause long enough to determine if they had a right to yell at me to stop. If not, I'd continue on my fucking way, and you're damned right I'd evade them if I could. I'm still waiting for you to tell me how that would make me a criminal who deserved to be shot, or how it would make THEM "acting in self-defense" for shooting me.

What do you mean, "he had no reason to believe they were truly dangerous"? They were total strangers holding guns and detaining him with no actual authority to do so. Would YOU feel safe and in no danger in his place? "These clearly weren't highway robbers"? Clear in what way? And don't even start on that "They were THIS PARTICULAR THREAT, therefore they weren't any threat at all" crap. I don't buy that sort of cherrypicked debate parameter from anyone.

"In fact, he was so certain the guy wasn't going to shoot him that he veered from his path". Yeah, or maybe he wasn't certain at all that they weren't going to shoot him, and THAT'S why he thought he needed to disarm one of them.

Why are you brushing over his attack on the son? They yelled at him to stop a bunch of times, and they had guns and clearly suspected him of a crime, but they never got physical with him, so why did he attack the son? Why shouldnt the son be able to claim self defense when he clearly was defending himself from an attacker?

I'm brushing over nothing. I'm saying he was completely justified in attacking the son, because the son fucking started it. Why are YOU brushing over THAT?

Oh, "they yelled at him to stop a bunch of times", did they? And that's supposed to mean what? He's obligated to do what they say? Who the fuck are they to tell anyone to do anything? And please explain to me how it was "clear" to Arbery what they wanted, aside from the fact that they were strangers chasing him in trucks with guns. I don't recall anyone telling us that Ahmaud Arbery was a psychic.

"They never got physical with him." THEY WERE CHASING HIM WITH GUNS. The son got out of the truck and came toward him WITH A GUN. Is your position that Arbery was required to wait and see if he was going to do anything with the gun, or if maybe he just thought it went well with his shitkicker outfit? Shockingly, I don't wait for people to "get physical" with me when they're holding guns in their hands, either. I assume that gun means something. Go figure.

The son shouldn't be able to claim self-defense because HE STARTED IT. He instigated the confrontation; Arbery didn't.

 

[SavannahMann]

The killers may well walk.

By the law of self defense they should....defending your life with lethal force is lawful.

No the law of self defense doesn’t say that. Idiot.

Would you quote the Georgia law on self defense?

Here it is...https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-3/article-2/16-3-212010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES :: CHAPTER 3 - DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS :: ARTICLE 2 - JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE :: § 16-3-21 - Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution

And you can’t claim self defense when committing a felony. Otherwise every armed robber would claim self defense when they shoot the clerk.

Citizen arrests arent illegal.

They had no grounds for Citizens Arrest. First they had no firsthand knowledge. Second. They had no authority.

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE :: CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS :: ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS :: § 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest

law.justia.com

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

But with this you have to consider the Winn Dixie decision. https://www.gabar.org/forthepublic/forteachersstudents/lre/teacherresources/upload/ch16.pdf

So the McMichaels had no authority. The owner of the property may, but neighbors do not.

So everything from the go was in violation of the law. Arming up. Setting off in pursuit. Attempting to stop Arturo was a crime. It wouldn’t matter if they were sure they Had Jesse James in front of them. They had no firsthand knowledge of a crime, and no authority to arrest him.

So in attempting to arrest him they committed a Felony. Being armed at the time makes it two felonies. Waving their guns around is a third felony. Now no Felon is allowed to claim self defense.

This may not be the law where you are from. It may not be the law you think it should be. But it is the law in Georgia. And has been for decades.

The only one who could claim self defense is Arbury. He was under no legal obligation to run from the attack. Stand your ground.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Another black scumbag rewarded.

And three more cracker assholes heading up the river.

I doubt that.

I don't doubt it. These testosterone-poisoned redneck vigilante-wannabes make the whole state look bad. I don't see the jury taking kindly to that, unless their defense attorney has a shitload more evidence than we're seeing now.

bwaaaaaaaaa prejudiced much? Obviously.....

What you see and all you see is MSM bullllfuckensheet ....got dat boyo?

 

[SavannahMann]

The killers may well walk.

By the law of self defense they should....defending your life with lethal force is lawful.

No the law of self defense doesn’t say that. Idiot.

Would you quote the Georgia law on self defense?

Here it is...https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-3/article-2/16-3-212010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES :: CHAPTER 3 - DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS :: ARTICLE 2 - JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE :: § 16-3-21 - Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution

And you can’t claim self defense when committing a felony. Otherwise every armed robber would claim self defense when they shoot the clerk.

Laughable......there was no felony committed....everything the McMichaels did was completely legal....you watch too much t.v. girl.

Three Felonies before they shot him. It is why they are rotting in jail in heavily Republican South Georgia when a Republican Governor and Republican Attorney General are and were in office.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The killers may well walk.

By the law of self defense they should....defending your life with lethal force is lawful.

No the law of self defense doesn’t say that. Idiot.

Would you quote the Georgia law on self defense?

Here it is...https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-3/article-2/16-3-212010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES :: CHAPTER 3 - DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS :: ARTICLE 2 - JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE :: § 16-3-21 - Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution

And you can’t claim self defense when committing a felony. Otherwise every armed robber would claim self defense when they shoot the clerk.

Laughable......there was no felony committed....everything the McMichaels did was completely legal....you watch too much t.v. girl.

Do you know what, "I'm posting a link to a website, and then I'm just stating over and over that it agrees with me without citing the exact place where it does" means to me? It means, "I'm wrong, but I don't want to be and don't care."

Please cite all the exact places in the law that justify all of the things the McMichaels did. Because right now, all I'm hearing from you is, "It was legal, it was, IT WAS! There, that's settled because I said so." And you should know by now that I take that as an admission that you know it wasn't.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

I don't believe he was "jogging." I believe he was trespassing, and fled.

Dont forget the attempted assault too that got him killed by the son.

Yeah, um, I'm also not buying that it's "attempted assault" when he was unarmed and the other men had guns and were illegally detaining him on a street. Not saying I'm not open to more evidence, but so far I haven't heard any that doesn't make me see that as "self-defense".

They werent detaining him for no reason. Also, when you are facing a potential criminal and you are holding a gun, if he charges at you and attacks you, its a pretty fucking good sign that he is not just some friendly "jogger". People have a right to defend themselves against violent attackers.

Okay, give me a good and legal reason for non-police civilians to detain anyone on the street with guns. Give me sufficient and legal reasons they were justified as treating him as a "potential criminal". Tell me what legal grounds they had for doing what they did that made his behavior "assault" and not self-defense. I can assure you that if a group of men with guns detained ME on the street, and I thought hitting one of them and taking his gun would allow me to escape, I'd do exactly that, and I would think you would, as well. And that doesn't automatically make either of us a criminal. People DO have a right to defend themselves against violent attackers . . . so tell me how that's not what Arberry was doing.

If my facts are correct, they thought he was a burglar. You can make citizen arrests.

I know that if someone was yelling at you to stop, you would. If they were wearing masks and yelling "get on your knees motherfucker", it might be a different story, but in this case he evaded them, they told him to stop, he keeps going, they tell him to stop, he keeps going and after quite some time of not shooting him, they cut him off. He had no reason to believe they were truly dangerous at that point. These clearly werent highway robbers. In fact, he was so certain that the guy wasnt going to shoot him that he veered from his path and assaulted a man with a shotgun.

If MY facts are correct, they thought he was a burglar, but didn't have any actual evidence beyond their personal suspicions.

I know that if someone was yelling at me to stop, I'd pause long enough to determine if they had a right to yell at me to stop. If not, I'd continue on my fucking way, and you're damned right I'd evade them if I could. I'm still waiting for you to tell me how that would make me a criminal who deserved to be shot, or how it would make THEM "acting in self-defense" for shooting me.

What do you mean, "he had no reason to believe they were truly dangerous"? They were total strangers holding guns and detaining him with no actual authority to do so. Would YOU feel safe and in no danger in his place? "These clearly weren't highway robbers"? Clear in what way? And don't even start on that "They were THIS PARTICULAR THREAT, therefore they weren't any threat at all" crap. I don't buy that sort of cherrypicked debate parameter from anyone.

"In fact, he was so certain the guy wasn't going to shoot him that he veered from his path". Yeah, or maybe he wasn't certain at all that they weren't going to shoot him, and THAT'S why he thought he needed to disarm one of them.

Why are you brushing over his attack on the son? They yelled at him to stop a bunch of times, and they had guns and clearly suspected him of a crime, but they never got physical with him, so why did he attack the son? Why shouldnt the son be able to claim self defense when he clearly was defending himself from an attacker?

I'm brushing over nothing. I'm saying he was completely justified in attacking the son, because the son fucking started it. Why are YOU brushing over THAT?

Oh, "they yelled at him to stop a bunch of times", did they? And that's supposed to mean what? He's obligated to do what they say? Who the fuck are they to tell anyone to do anything? And please explain to me how it was "clear" to Arbery what they wanted, aside from the fact that they were strangers chasing him in trucks with guns. I don't recall anyone telling us that Ahmaud Arbery was a psychic.

"They never got physical with him." THEY WERE CHASING HIM WITH GUNS. The son got out of the truck and came toward him WITH A GUN. Is your position that Arbery was required to wait and see if he was going to do anything with the gun, or if maybe he just thought it went well with his shitkicker outfit? Shockingly, I don't wait for people to "get physical" with me when they're holding guns in their hands, either. I assume that gun means something. Go figure.

The son shouldn't be able to claim self-defense because HE STARTED IT. He instigated the confrontation; Arbery didn't.

You are nothing short of a liar. They did not come towards the fucken retarded negro(known mental history) with guns....he jogged towards them and attacked the younger McMichaels....there is no excuse for this assault.

Again all one has to do is watch the video which captures the essence of the case....the assault by ahmaud on the youngee mcmicharls trying to take away his weapon and thr shooting of ahmaud as a result....that is all the jury needa ro acquit the defendants in this case.

Once again...I think this is about the 4th time I have posted it...........

Ahmaud Arbery shooting: See the video that started the case

 

[Dana7360]

The killers may well walk.

By the law of self defense they should....defending your life with lethal force is lawful.

No the law of self defense doesn’t say that. Idiot.

Would you quote the Georgia law on self defense?

Here it is...https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-3/article-2/16-3-212010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES :: CHAPTER 3 - DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS :: ARTICLE 2 - JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE :: § 16-3-21 - Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution

And you can’t claim self defense when committing a felony. Otherwise every armed robber would claim self defense when they shoot the clerk.

Citizen arrests arent illegal.

They had no grounds for Citizens Arrest. First they had no firsthand knowledge. Second. They had no authority.

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE :: CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS :: ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS :: § 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest

law.justia.com

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

But with this you have to consider the Winn Dixie decision. https://www.gabar.org/forthepublic/forteachersstudents/lre/teacherresources/upload/ch16.pdf

So the McMichaels had no authority. The owner of the property may, but neighbors do not.

So everything from the go was in violation of the law. Arming up. Setting off in pursuit. Attempting to stop Arturo was a crime. It wouldn’t matter if they were sure they Had Jesse James in front of them. They had no firsthand knowledge of a crime, and no authority to arrest him.

So in attempting to arrest him they committed a Felony. Being armed at the time makes it two felonies. Waving their guns around is a third felony. Now no Felon is allowed to claim self defense.

This may not be the law where you are from. It may not be the law you think it should be. But it is the law in Georgia. And has been for decades.

The only one who could claim self defense is Arbury. He was under no legal obligation to run from the attack. Stand your ground.

I would also point out that trespassing is not normally a felony, it’s a misdemeanor. There is nothing in that law that allows anyone to kill a person and there is a huge difference between arrest and killing someone.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

The killers may well walk.

By the law of self defense they should....defending your life with lethal force is lawful.

No the law of self defense doesn’t say that. Idiot.

Would you quote the Georgia law on self defense?

Here it is...https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-3/article-2/16-3-212010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES :: CHAPTER 3 - DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS :: ARTICLE 2 - JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE :: § 16-3-21 - Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution

And you can’t claim self defense when committing a felony. Otherwise every armed robber would claim self defense when they shoot the clerk.

Laughable......there was no felony committed....everything the McMichaels did was completely legal....you watch too much t.v. girl.

Three Felonies before they shot him. It is why they are rotting in jail in heavily Republican South Georgia when a Republican Governor and Republican Attorney General are and were in office.

Nonsense......they are in jail bcause of politics.......powerful politicians trying to prove they love Negroes no matter what they do or have done....time and again these cases usually boil down to the MSM lying and politicians as a result see an opportunity to advance theie careers by supporting the fallacious allegations.

Why do you refuse to cite the 3 felonies you claim.....are you trying to engage in deception?

 

[TheGreenHornet]

The killers may well walk.

By the law of self defense they should....defending your life with lethal force is lawful.

No the law of self defense doesn’t say that. Idiot.

Would you quote the Georgia law on self defense?

Here it is...https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-3/article-2/16-3-212010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES :: CHAPTER 3 - DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS :: ARTICLE 2 - JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE :: § 16-3-21 - Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution

And you can’t claim self defense when committing a felony. Otherwise every armed robber would claim self defense when they shoot the clerk.

Citizen arrests arent illegal.

They had no grounds for Citizens Arrest. First they had no firsthand knowledge. Second. They had no authority.

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE :: CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS :: ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS :: § 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest

law.justia.com

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

But with this you have to consider the Winn Dixie decision. https://www.gabar.org/forthepublic/forteachersstudents/lre/teacherresources/upload/ch16.pdf

So the McMichaels had no authority. The owner of the property may, but neighbors do not.

So everything from the go was in violation of the law. Arming up. Setting off in pursuit. Attempting to stop Arturo was a crime. It wouldn’t matter if they were sure they Had Jesse James in front of them. They had no firsthand knowledge of a crime, and no authority to arrest him.

So in attempting to arrest him they committed a Felony. Being armed at the time makes it two felonies. Waving their guns around is a third felony. Now no Felon is allowed to claim self defense.

This may not be the law where you are from. It may not be the law you think it should be. But it is the law in Georgia. And has been for decades.

The only one who could claim self defense is Arbury. He was under no legal obligation to run from the attack. Stand your ground.

I would also point out that trespassing is not normally a felony, it’s a misdemeanor. There is nothing in that law that allows anyone to kill a person and there is a huge difference between arrest and killing someone.

Incoherent much? Obviously........of course there is a law that allows the use of lethal force....it is called self-defence.