The painful truth about Ahmaud Arberry

[KingGUERRILLA]

"standing your ground," doesn’t literally mean standing in one spot on the ground.

What does it mean to you?

Stand your ground does not apply. For it presumes that the individual standing has done nothing to instigate the altercation. If you were on the street. Awaiting the arrival of a friend. And were accosted by a miscreant. Then Stand Your Ground would be appropriate. It is in fact the very reason they passed such laws.

Travis was not standing his ground. Either by text or by intent of the statute. The defense of Stand your Ground would not be allowed if it was offered. And should not be.

Travis is facing a lifetime in prison for his crimes. And in Georgia we know he commuted those crimes. By the collective standard that is our understanding of Georgia Norms and laws, Travis is the criminal. That is why he remains in Jail awaiting Trial. That is why he was denied bail, as were the co-defendants.

translation; by chasing a criminal you provoked them and are automatically liable to be attacked

from now on never chase someone you suspect of committing a crime and you won't have to worry about provoking them to commit an act of violence

Of course the next time an undercover cop is chasing someone they can turn around and kill him by claiming his Chase provoked their violence of action

good job boys

I did not discuss Self Defense. That has been covered previously. I answered the question concerning Stand Your Ground. Or do you deny that the intent of stand your ground was when a victim was attacked without provocation by a criminal?

Stand your ground is designed to determine who was the aggressor

In any given incident when there is plenty of opportunity to retreat and someone actually covers ground in an effort to engage another party it's pretty clear who the aggressor is

By providing legal protection to those who do not cover ground in an effort to confront another individual you give Society a chance to do the right thing

For instance if arberry were actually jogging and two murderous klansman pulled up in a pickup truck pointing weapons at him and screaming "I'm going to kill NIGG*ER" then it would be perfectly reasonable for him to pull a gun and kill both of them as he would have no duty to retreat and a legitimate fear of great bodily harm or death

That's why citizen's arrest is such a dangerous thing to do because the person who you're trying to detain has a lot of opportunity to kill you

Trouble for you social justice fantasy Warriors is the fact that the McMichaels were sitting still having given up their Pursuit when they were closed on confronted and subsequently attacked

Stand your ground is an extension of the Castle Doctrine. It ended for criminal and civil litigation the need to retreat from threat when the person was doing nothing wrong. If you are in your home and someone enters unbidden. You do not need to lock yourself in a bathroom to hide from them. Your home is your castle.

when on the street going about your day. You do not need to retreat before the criminal aggressor. Providing you are doing nothing to instigate or exacerbate the altercation. The Stand your Ground and Castle Doctrine vanish as options when you pursue someone. You are no longer standing your ground. You are in fact pursuing someone who is retreating.

Your legal authority to pursue someone is dependent upon the situation as is your lawful authority to use force. In Georgia we long ago decided that the excuse “I thought” was not sufficient. You had to catch them in the act.

What you can’t do is treat the law like a Chinese Restaurant. You can’t pick one from Column A and two from Column B. When you start with one, you are stuck with it. What you want is for people to hop from law to law like they are playing hopscotch.

According to you it was perfectly reasonable and legal to set off in pursuit. You said it was a valid Citizens Arrest situation. And you have repudiated that and then embraced it and then repudiated it again. The sequence of events in totality are criminal. You can’t isolate one moment and claim that moment absent all other considerations was legal and right. Context matters.

If you throw a brick through a car window. Criminal. If you smash the same window to rescue a dog on a hot day. Legal. Context, the why. Not just the what. The why. The intent if you will.

The Why determines if what you did, the actions, were legal or a criminal act. As does the sequence of events leading to the event.

A man attacks you with a baseball bat. You shoot him. Self defense. He pursued you from the bar you just left. Still self defense. He was angry that you had grabbed his girlfriend’s ass and punched him in the mouth. Ok. Self defense is looking a little shakier. Your weapon is being carried illegally. You are in a lot of trouble. Understand now?

I never refuted anything I said...

to reiterate Ad nauseam a citizen's arrest was a perfectly reasonable thing to do under the circumstances but if Travis McMichael had run Maude down and shot him then you might have a case but the fact is the McMichaels were standing still when Maude made the conscious decision to close on them and attack

The McMichaels were standing their ground in the middle of the road after having pursued arberry

arberry realized that men who were pursuing him we're standing in the middle of the road very likely waiting for him

with nearly half of a football field in between the two individuals maude decided to close directly on his Target but when Travis McMichael shouldered his shotgun Maude realized that he was going to get shot if he continued to charge directly at him so he pulled the sneak attack around the truck and got his dumb ass shot anyway

* you understand now?

what the hell was this experienced criminal thinking???

"hey there's the two guys who were chasing me earlier and one of them is now holding a shotgun standing in the middle of the road"

" I guess I should continue running directly at them and if they stand in my way punch them in the throat"

it's not like he was trapped in a dark alley with armed assailants closing in from both directions he had plenty of reasonable opportunities to escape or just keep on "jogging"

He wasn't forced to attack anyone and had no justifiable reason to believe these men were going to shoot him if he continued to flee

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

LOL @45 degrees

as if any of that crap matters!!!

if it does not matter, why did you lie that you can see a turn by AA that was 90 degrees and that TM was standing still very close to the engine block of the truck WHEN that turn was suddenly made.

Trucks are rectangles so in order to run to the front of one after running along the side of one you have to turn...guess what... 90°

you can literally see it on the video dude

Even if he didn't turn a perfect 90 degree angle he still changed his direction to facilitate the attack on a man who was standing his ground

I know you wish that Maude got shot and then reacted to the attack by committing his suicide charge but that's not what happened and forensic evidence proved that maude took all the gunshots Square in the chest from a low unaimed angle

You hate the video that's why you keep trying to show still pictures and manipulate the narrative with all your silly drawings

 

[Faun]

"standing your ground," doesn’t literally mean standing in one spot on the ground.

What does it mean to you?

To me, it means a person facing a reasonable belief of an imminent attack that could result in death or great bodily harm can resort to self-defense which could include lethal force without first attempting to retreat. What does it mean to you?

 

[Faun]

"standing your ground," doesn’t literally mean standing in one spot on the ground.

What does it mean to you?

Stand your ground does not apply. For it presumes that the individual standing has done nothing to instigate the altercation. If you were on the street. Awaiting the arrival of a friend. And were accosted by a miscreant. Then Stand Your Ground would be appropriate. It is in fact the very reason they passed such laws.

Travis was not standing his ground. Either by text or by intent of the statute. The defense of Stand your Ground would not be allowed if it was offered. And should not be.

Travis is facing a lifetime in prison for his crimes. And in Georgia we know he commuted those crimes. By the collective standard that is our understanding of Georgia Norms and laws, Travis is the criminal. That is why he remains in Jail awaiting Trial. That is why he was denied bail, as were the co-defendants.

translation; by chasing a criminal you provoked them and are automatically liable to be attacked

from now on never chase someone you suspect of committing a crime and you won't have to worry about provoking them to commit an act of violence

Of course the next time an undercover cop is chasing someone they can turn around and kill him by claiming his Chase provoked their violence of action

good job boys

I did not discuss Self Defense. That has been covered previously. I answered the question concerning Stand Your Ground. Or do you deny that the intent of stand your ground was when a victim was attacked without provocation by a criminal?

Stand your ground is designed to determine who was the aggressor

In any given incident when there is plenty of opportunity to retreat and someone actually covers ground in an effort to engage another party it's pretty clear who the aggressor is

By providing legal protection to those who do not cover ground in an effort to confront another individual you give Society a chance to do the right thing

For instance if arberry were actually jogging and two murderous klansman pulled up in a pickup truck pointing weapons at him and screaming "I'm going to kill NIGG*ER" then it would be perfectly reasonable for him to pull a gun and kill both of them as he would have no duty to retreat and a legitimate fear of great bodily harm or death

That's why citizen's arrest is such a dangerous thing to do because the person who you're trying to detain has a lot of opportunity to kill you

Trouble for you social justice fantasy Warriors is the fact that the McMichaels were sitting still having given up their Pursuit when they were closed on confronted and subsequently attacked

Stand your ground is an extension of the Castle Doctrine. It ended for criminal and civil litigation the need to retreat from threat when the person was doing nothing wrong. If you are in your home and someone enters unbidden. You do not need to lock yourself in a bathroom to hide from them. Your home is your castle.

when on the street going about your day. You do not need to retreat before the criminal aggressor. Providing you are doing nothing to instigate or exacerbate the altercation. The Stand your Ground and Castle Doctrine vanish as options when you pursue someone. You are no longer standing your ground. You are in fact pursuing someone who is retreating.

Your legal authority to pursue someone is dependent upon the situation as is your lawful authority to use force. In Georgia we long ago decided that the excuse “I thought” was not sufficient. You had to catch them in the act.

What you can’t do is treat the law like a Chinese Restaurant. You can’t pick one from Column A and two from Column B. When you start with one, you are stuck with it. What you want is for people to hop from law to law like they are playing hopscotch.

According to you it was perfectly reasonable and legal to set off in pursuit. You said it was a valid Citizens Arrest situation. And you have repudiated that and then embraced it and then repudiated it again. The sequence of events in totality are criminal. You can’t isolate one moment and claim that moment absent all other considerations was legal and right. Context matters.

If you throw a brick through a car window. Criminal. If you smash the same window to rescue a dog on a hot day. Legal. Context, the why. Not just the what. The why. The intent if you will.

The Why determines if what you did, the actions, were legal or a criminal act. As does the sequence of events leading to the event.

A man attacks you with a baseball bat. You shoot him. Self defense. He pursued you from the bar you just left. Still self defense. He was angry that you had grabbed his girlfriend’s ass and punched him in the mouth. Ok. Self defense is looking a little shakier. Your weapon is being carried illegally. You are in a lot of trouble. Understand now?

I never refuted anything I said...

to reiterate Ad nauseam a citizen's arrest was a perfectly reasonable thing to do under the circumstances but if Travis McMichael had run Maude down and shot him then you might have a case but the fact is the McMichaels were standing still when Maude made the conscious decision to close on them and attack

The McMichaels were standing their ground in the middle of the road after having pursued arberry

arberry realized that men who were pursuing him we're standing in the middle of the road very likely waiting for him

with nearly half of a football field in between the two individuals maude decided to close directly on his Target but when Travis McMichael shouldered his shotgun Maude realized that he was going to get shot if he continued to charge directly at him so he pulled the sneak attack around the truck and got his dumb ass shot anyway

* you understand now?

what the hell was this experienced criminal thinking???

"hey there's the two guys who were chasing me earlier and one of them is now holding a shotgun standing in the middle of the road"

" I guess I should continue running directly at them and if they stand in my way punch them in the throat"

it's not like he was trapped in a dark alley with armed assailants closing in from both directions he had plenty of reasonable opportunities to escape or just keep on "jogging"

He wasn't forced to attack anyone and had no justifiable reason to believe these men were going to shoot him if he continued to flee

"I never refuted anything I said..."

You may not have but everyone else here did.

 

[Muhammed]

"standing your ground," doesn’t literally mean standing in one spot on the ground.

What does it mean to you?

To me, it means a person facing a reasonable belief of an imminent attack that could result in death or great bodily harm can resort to self-defense which could include lethal force without first attempting to retreat.

So if Redbeard's truck is parked in the road mere yards from his home, because his father, Captain Watson, is standing in the bed of the truck, and the Gump that Redbeard reasonably believes has been terrorizing the neighborhood by illegally trespassing in the middle of the night, repeatedly, and several guns have been stolen during the recent crime wave, and Gump is running directly towards Redbeard despite repeated pleas and won't stop perusing Redbeard...

Then Gump gets shot while attempting to steal Redbeard's shotgun right out of his warm alive hands....

Is that action by Gump deserving of a Darwin award?

How could Gump have avoided this?

 

[SavannahMann]

"standing your ground," doesn’t literally mean standing in one spot on the ground.

What does it mean to you?

Stand your ground does not apply. For it presumes that the individual standing has done nothing to instigate the altercation. If you were on the street. Awaiting the arrival of a friend. And were accosted by a miscreant. Then Stand Your Ground would be appropriate. It is in fact the very reason they passed such laws.

Travis was not standing his ground. Either by text or by intent of the statute. The defense of Stand your Ground would not be allowed if it was offered. And should not be.

Travis is facing a lifetime in prison for his crimes. And in Georgia we know he commuted those crimes. By the collective standard that is our understanding of Georgia Norms and laws, Travis is the criminal. That is why he remains in Jail awaiting Trial. That is why he was denied bail, as were the co-defendants.

translation; by chasing a criminal you provoked them and are automatically liable to be attacked

from now on never chase someone you suspect of committing a crime and you won't have to worry about provoking them to commit an act of violence

Of course the next time an undercover cop is chasing someone they can turn around and kill him by claiming his Chase provoked their violence of action

good job boys

I did not discuss Self Defense. That has been covered previously. I answered the question concerning Stand Your Ground. Or do you deny that the intent of stand your ground was when a victim was attacked without provocation by a criminal?

Stand your ground is designed to determine who was the aggressor

In any given incident when there is plenty of opportunity to retreat and someone actually covers ground in an effort to engage another party it's pretty clear who the aggressor is

By providing legal protection to those who do not cover ground in an effort to confront another individual you give Society a chance to do the right thing

For instance if arberry were actually jogging and two murderous klansman pulled up in a pickup truck pointing weapons at him and screaming "I'm going to kill NIGG*ER" then it would be perfectly reasonable for him to pull a gun and kill both of them as he would have no duty to retreat and a legitimate fear of great bodily harm or death

That's why citizen's arrest is such a dangerous thing to do because the person who you're trying to detain has a lot of opportunity to kill you

Trouble for you social justice fantasy Warriors is the fact that the McMichaels were sitting still having given up their Pursuit when they were closed on confronted and subsequently attacked

Stand your ground is an extension of the Castle Doctrine. It ended for criminal and civil litigation the need to retreat from threat when the person was doing nothing wrong. If you are in your home and someone enters unbidden. You do not need to lock yourself in a bathroom to hide from them. Your home is your castle.

when on the street going about your day. You do not need to retreat before the criminal aggressor. Providing you are doing nothing to instigate or exacerbate the altercation. The Stand your Ground and Castle Doctrine vanish as options when you pursue someone. You are no longer standing your ground. You are in fact pursuing someone who is retreating.

Your legal authority to pursue someone is dependent upon the situation as is your lawful authority to use force. In Georgia we long ago decided that the excuse “I thought” was not sufficient. You had to catch them in the act.

What you can’t do is treat the law like a Chinese Restaurant. You can’t pick one from Column A and two from Column B. When you start with one, you are stuck with it. What you want is for people to hop from law to law like they are playing hopscotch.

According to you it was perfectly reasonable and legal to set off in pursuit. You said it was a valid Citizens Arrest situation. And you have repudiated that and then embraced it and then repudiated it again. The sequence of events in totality are criminal. You can’t isolate one moment and claim that moment absent all other considerations was legal and right. Context matters.

If you throw a brick through a car window. Criminal. If you smash the same window to rescue a dog on a hot day. Legal. Context, the why. Not just the what. The why. The intent if you will.

The Why determines if what you did, the actions, were legal or a criminal act. As does the sequence of events leading to the event.

A man attacks you with a baseball bat. You shoot him. Self defense. He pursued you from the bar you just left. Still self defense. He was angry that you had grabbed his girlfriend’s ass and punched him in the mouth. Ok. Self defense is looking a little shakier. Your weapon is being carried illegally. You are in a lot of trouble. Understand now?

I never refuted anything I said...

to reiterate Ad nauseam a citizen's arrest was a perfectly reasonable thing to do under the circumstances but if Travis McMichael had run Maude down and shot him then you might have a case but the fact is the McMichaels were standing still when Maude made the conscious decision to close on them and attack

The McMichaels were standing their ground in the middle of the road after having pursued arberry

arberry realized that men who were pursuing him we're standing in the middle of the road very likely waiting for him

with nearly half of a football field in between the two individuals maude decided to close directly on his Target but when Travis McMichael shouldered his shotgun Maude realized that he was going to get shot if he continued to charge directly at him so he pulled the sneak attack around the truck and got his dumb ass shot anyway

* you understand now?

what the hell was this experienced criminal thinking???

"hey there's the two guys who were chasing me earlier and one of them is now holding a shotgun standing in the middle of the road"

" I guess I should continue running directly at them and if they stand in my way punch them in the throat"

it's not like he was trapped in a dark alley with armed assailants closing in from both directions he had plenty of reasonable opportunities to escape or just keep on "jogging"

He wasn't forced to attack anyone and had no justifiable reason to believe these men were going to shoot him if he continued to flee

The McMichaels could not be standing their ground. Not according to the law. They are ineligible for that defense.

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

"standing your ground," doesn’t literally mean standing in one spot on the ground.

What does it mean to you?

Stand your ground does not apply. For it presumes that the individual standing has done nothing to instigate the altercation. If you were on the street. Awaiting the arrival of a friend. And were accosted by a miscreant. Then Stand Your Ground would be appropriate. It is in fact the very reason they passed such laws.

Travis was not standing his ground. Either by text or by intent of the statute. The defense of Stand your Ground would not be allowed if it was offered. And should not be.

Travis is facing a lifetime in prison for his crimes. And in Georgia we know he commuted those crimes. By the collective standard that is our understanding of Georgia Norms and laws, Travis is the criminal. That is why he remains in Jail awaiting Trial. That is why he was denied bail, as were the co-defendants.

translation; by chasing a criminal you provoked them and are automatically liable to be attacked

from now on never chase someone you suspect of committing a crime and you won't have to worry about provoking them to commit an act of violence

Of course the next time an undercover cop is chasing someone they can turn around and kill him by claiming his Chase provoked their violence of action

good job boys

I did not discuss Self Defense. That has been covered previously. I answered the question concerning Stand Your Ground. Or do you deny that the intent of stand your ground was when a victim was attacked without provocation by a criminal?

Stand your ground is designed to determine who was the aggressor

In any given incident when there is plenty of opportunity to retreat and someone actually covers ground in an effort to engage another party it's pretty clear who the aggressor is

By providing legal protection to those who do not cover ground in an effort to confront another individual you give Society a chance to do the right thing

For instance if arberry were actually jogging and two murderous klansman pulled up in a pickup truck pointing weapons at him and screaming "I'm going to kill NIGG*ER" then it would be perfectly reasonable for him to pull a gun and kill both of them as he would have no duty to retreat and a legitimate fear of great bodily harm or death

That's why citizen's arrest is such a dangerous thing to do because the person who you're trying to detain has a lot of opportunity to kill you

Trouble for you social justice fantasy Warriors is the fact that the McMichaels were sitting still having given up their Pursuit when they were closed on confronted and subsequently attacked

Stand your ground is an extension of the Castle Doctrine. It ended for criminal and civil litigation the need to retreat from threat when the person was doing nothing wrong. If you are in your home and someone enters unbidden. You do not need to lock yourself in a bathroom to hide from them. Your home is your castle.

when on the street going about your day. You do not need to retreat before the criminal aggressor. Providing you are doing nothing to instigate or exacerbate the altercation. The Stand your Ground and Castle Doctrine vanish as options when you pursue someone. You are no longer standing your ground. You are in fact pursuing someone who is retreating.

Your legal authority to pursue someone is dependent upon the situation as is your lawful authority to use force. In Georgia we long ago decided that the excuse “I thought” was not sufficient. You had to catch them in the act.

What you can’t do is treat the law like a Chinese Restaurant. You can’t pick one from Column A and two from Column B. When you start with one, you are stuck with it. What you want is for people to hop from law to law like they are playing hopscotch.

According to you it was perfectly reasonable and legal to set off in pursuit. You said it was a valid Citizens Arrest situation. And you have repudiated that and then embraced it and then repudiated it again. The sequence of events in totality are criminal. You can’t isolate one moment and claim that moment absent all other considerations was legal and right. Context matters.

If you throw a brick through a car window. Criminal. If you smash the same window to rescue a dog on a hot day. Legal. Context, the why. Not just the what. The why. The intent if you will.

The Why determines if what you did, the actions, were legal or a criminal act. As does the sequence of events leading to the event.

A man attacks you with a baseball bat. You shoot him. Self defense. He pursued you from the bar you just left. Still self defense. He was angry that you had grabbed his girlfriend’s ass and punched him in the mouth. Ok. Self defense is looking a little shakier. Your weapon is being carried illegally. You are in a lot of trouble. Understand now?

I never refuted anything I said...

to reiterate Ad nauseam a citizen's arrest was a perfectly reasonable thing to do under the circumstances but if Travis McMichael had run Maude down and shot him then you might have a case but the fact is the McMichaels were standing still when Maude made the conscious decision to close on them and attack

The McMichaels were standing their ground in the middle of the road after having pursued arberry

arberry realized that men who were pursuing him we're standing in the middle of the road very likely waiting for him

with nearly half of a football field in between the two individuals maude decided to close directly on his Target but when Travis McMichael shouldered his shotgun Maude realized that he was going to get shot if he continued to charge directly at him so he pulled the sneak attack around the truck and got his dumb ass shot anyway

* you understand now?

what the hell was this experienced criminal thinking???

"hey there's the two guys who were chasing me earlier and one of them is now holding a shotgun standing in the middle of the road"

" I guess I should continue running directly at them and if they stand in my way punch them in the throat"

it's not like he was trapped in a dark alley with armed assailants closing in from both directions he had plenty of reasonable opportunities to escape or just keep on "jogging"

He wasn't forced to attack anyone and had no justifiable reason to believe these men were going to shoot him if he continued to flee

"I never refuted anything I said..."

You may not have but everyone else here did.

ACTUALLY i seem to have numerous supporters who seem to think you guys have it backward

LOL

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

"standing your ground," doesn’t literally mean standing in one spot on the ground.

What does it mean to you?

Stand your ground does not apply. For it presumes that the individual standing has done nothing to instigate the altercation. If you were on the street. Awaiting the arrival of a friend. And were accosted by a miscreant. Then Stand Your Ground would be appropriate. It is in fact the very reason they passed such laws.

Travis was not standing his ground. Either by text or by intent of the statute. The defense of Stand your Ground would not be allowed if it was offered. And should not be.

Travis is facing a lifetime in prison for his crimes. And in Georgia we know he commuted those crimes. By the collective standard that is our understanding of Georgia Norms and laws, Travis is the criminal. That is why he remains in Jail awaiting Trial. That is why he was denied bail, as were the co-defendants.

translation; by chasing a criminal you provoked them and are automatically liable to be attacked

from now on never chase someone you suspect of committing a crime and you won't have to worry about provoking them to commit an act of violence

Of course the next time an undercover cop is chasing someone they can turn around and kill him by claiming his Chase provoked their violence of action

good job boys

I did not discuss Self Defense. That has been covered previously. I answered the question concerning Stand Your Ground. Or do you deny that the intent of stand your ground was when a victim was attacked without provocation by a criminal?

Stand your ground is designed to determine who was the aggressor

In any given incident when there is plenty of opportunity to retreat and someone actually covers ground in an effort to engage another party it's pretty clear who the aggressor is

By providing legal protection to those who do not cover ground in an effort to confront another individual you give Society a chance to do the right thing

For instance if arberry were actually jogging and two murderous klansman pulled up in a pickup truck pointing weapons at him and screaming "I'm going to kill NIGG*ER" then it would be perfectly reasonable for him to pull a gun and kill both of them as he would have no duty to retreat and a legitimate fear of great bodily harm or death

That's why citizen's arrest is such a dangerous thing to do because the person who you're trying to detain has a lot of opportunity to kill you

Trouble for you social justice fantasy Warriors is the fact that the McMichaels were sitting still having given up their Pursuit when they were closed on confronted and subsequently attacked

Stand your ground is an extension of the Castle Doctrine. It ended for criminal and civil litigation the need to retreat from threat when the person was doing nothing wrong. If you are in your home and someone enters unbidden. You do not need to lock yourself in a bathroom to hide from them. Your home is your castle.

when on the street going about your day. You do not need to retreat before the criminal aggressor. Providing you are doing nothing to instigate or exacerbate the altercation. The Stand your Ground and Castle Doctrine vanish as options when you pursue someone. You are no longer standing your ground. You are in fact pursuing someone who is retreating.

Your legal authority to pursue someone is dependent upon the situation as is your lawful authority to use force. In Georgia we long ago decided that the excuse “I thought” was not sufficient. You had to catch them in the act.

What you can’t do is treat the law like a Chinese Restaurant. You can’t pick one from Column A and two from Column B. When you start with one, you are stuck with it. What you want is for people to hop from law to law like they are playing hopscotch.

According to you it was perfectly reasonable and legal to set off in pursuit. You said it was a valid Citizens Arrest situation. And you have repudiated that and then embraced it and then repudiated it again. The sequence of events in totality are criminal. You can’t isolate one moment and claim that moment absent all other considerations was legal and right. Context matters.

If you throw a brick through a car window. Criminal. If you smash the same window to rescue a dog on a hot day. Legal. Context, the why. Not just the what. The why. The intent if you will.

The Why determines if what you did, the actions, were legal or a criminal act. As does the sequence of events leading to the event.

A man attacks you with a baseball bat. You shoot him. Self defense. He pursued you from the bar you just left. Still self defense. He was angry that you had grabbed his girlfriend’s ass and punched him in the mouth. Ok. Self defense is looking a little shakier. Your weapon is being carried illegally. You are in a lot of trouble. Understand now?

I never refuted anything I said...

to reiterate Ad nauseam a citizen's arrest was a perfectly reasonable thing to do under the circumstances but if Travis McMichael had run Maude down and shot him then you might have a case but the fact is the McMichaels were standing still when Maude made the conscious decision to close on them and attack

The McMichaels were standing their ground in the middle of the road after having pursued arberry

arberry realized that men who were pursuing him we're standing in the middle of the road very likely waiting for him

with nearly half of a football field in between the two individuals maude decided to close directly on his Target but when Travis McMichael shouldered his shotgun Maude realized that he was going to get shot if he continued to charge directly at him so he pulled the sneak attack around the truck and got his dumb ass shot anyway

* you understand now?

what the hell was this experienced criminal thinking???

"hey there's the two guys who were chasing me earlier and one of them is now holding a shotgun standing in the middle of the road"

" I guess I should continue running directly at them and if they stand in my way punch them in the throat"

it's not like he was trapped in a dark alley with armed assailants closing in from both directions he had plenty of reasonable opportunities to escape or just keep on "jogging"

He wasn't forced to attack anyone and had no justifiable reason to believe these men were going to shoot him if he continued to flee

The McMichaels could not be standing their ground. Not according to the law. They are ineligible for that defense.

Arberry was the one MOVING dumbass

look 2 men with guns who think im a criminal...better veer a bit to the right, its will be safe over there

LOL

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

"standing your ground," doesn’t literally mean standing in one spot on the ground.

What does it mean to you?

Stand your ground does not apply. For it presumes that the individual standing has done nothing to instigate the altercation. If you were on the street. Awaiting the arrival of a friend. And were accosted by a miscreant. Then Stand Your Ground would be appropriate. It is in fact the very reason they passed such laws.

Travis was not standing his ground. Either by text or by intent of the statute. The defense of Stand your Ground would not be allowed if it was offered. And should not be.

Travis is facing a lifetime in prison for his crimes. And in Georgia we know he commuted those crimes. By the collective standard that is our understanding of Georgia Norms and laws, Travis is the criminal. That is why he remains in Jail awaiting Trial. That is why he was denied bail, as were the co-defendants.

translation; by chasing a criminal you provoked them and are automatically liable to be attacked

from now on never chase someone you suspect of committing a crime and you won't have to worry about provoking them to commit an act of violence

Of course the next time an undercover cop is chasing someone they can turn around and kill him by claiming his Chase provoked their violence of action

good job boys

I did not discuss Self Defense. That has been covered previously. I answered the question concerning Stand Your Ground. Or do you deny that the intent of stand your ground was when a victim was attacked without provocation by a criminal?

Stand your ground is designed to determine who was the aggressor

In any given incident when there is plenty of opportunity to retreat and someone actually covers ground in an effort to engage another party it's pretty clear who the aggressor is

By providing legal protection to those who do not cover ground in an effort to confront another individual you give Society a chance to do the right thing

For instance if arberry were actually jogging and two murderous klansman pulled up in a pickup truck pointing weapons at him and screaming "I'm going to kill NIGG*ER" then it would be perfectly reasonable for him to pull a gun and kill both of them as he would have no duty to retreat and a legitimate fear of great bodily harm or death

That's why citizen's arrest is such a dangerous thing to do because the person who you're trying to detain has a lot of opportunity to kill you

Trouble for you social justice fantasy Warriors is the fact that the McMichaels were sitting still having given up their Pursuit when they were closed on confronted and subsequently attacked

Stand your ground is an extension of the Castle Doctrine. It ended for criminal and civil litigation the need to retreat from threat when the person was doing nothing wrong. If you are in your home and someone enters unbidden. You do not need to lock yourself in a bathroom to hide from them. Your home is your castle.

when on the street going about your day. You do not need to retreat before the criminal aggressor. Providing you are doing nothing to instigate or exacerbate the altercation. The Stand your Ground and Castle Doctrine vanish as options when you pursue someone. You are no longer standing your ground. You are in fact pursuing someone who is retreating.

Your legal authority to pursue someone is dependent upon the situation as is your lawful authority to use force. In Georgia we long ago decided that the excuse “I thought” was not sufficient. You had to catch them in the act.

What you can’t do is treat the law like a Chinese Restaurant. You can’t pick one from Column A and two from Column B. When you start with one, you are stuck with it. What you want is for people to hop from law to law like they are playing hopscotch.

According to you it was perfectly reasonable and legal to set off in pursuit. You said it was a valid Citizens Arrest situation. And you have repudiated that and then embraced it and then repudiated it again. The sequence of events in totality are criminal. You can’t isolate one moment and claim that moment absent all other considerations was legal and right. Context matters.

If you throw a brick through a car window. Criminal. If you smash the same window to rescue a dog on a hot day. Legal. Context, the why. Not just the what. The why. The intent if you will.

The Why determines if what you did, the actions, were legal or a criminal act. As does the sequence of events leading to the event.

A man attacks you with a baseball bat. You shoot him. Self defense. He pursued you from the bar you just left. Still self defense. He was angry that you had grabbed his girlfriend’s ass and punched him in the mouth. Ok. Self defense is looking a little shakier. Your weapon is being carried illegally. You are in a lot of trouble. Understand now?

I never refuted anything I said...

to reiterate Ad nauseam a citizen's arrest was a perfectly reasonable thing to do under the circumstances but if Travis McMichael had run Maude down and shot him then you might have a case but the fact is the McMichaels were standing still when Maude made the conscious decision to close on them and attack

The McMichaels were standing their ground in the middle of the road after having pursued arberry

arberry realized that men who were pursuing him we're standing in the middle of the road very likely waiting for him

with nearly half of a football field in between the two individuals maude decided to close directly on his Target but when Travis McMichael shouldered his shotgun Maude realized that he was going to get shot if he continued to charge directly at him so he pulled the sneak attack around the truck and got his dumb ass shot anyway

* you understand now?

what the hell was this experienced criminal thinking???

"hey there's the two guys who were chasing me earlier and one of them is now holding a shotgun standing in the middle of the road"

" I guess I should continue running directly at them and if they stand in my way punch them in the throat"

it's not like he was trapped in a dark alley with armed assailants closing in from both directions he had plenty of reasonable opportunities to escape or just keep on "jogging"

He wasn't forced to attack anyone and had no justifiable reason to believe these men were going to shoot him if he continued to flee

The McMichaels could not be standing their ground. Not according to the law. They are ineligible for that defense.

so arberry was just out for a casual jog and decided to simply veer to the right to avoid the men who were chasing him??

why not duck between the houses...or was he worried about TRESSPASSING?!?!

LOL

 

[Faun]

"standing your ground," doesn’t literally mean standing in one spot on the ground.

What does it mean to you?

To me, it means a person facing a reasonable belief of an imminent attack that could result in death or great bodily harm can resort to self-defense which could include lethal force without first attempting to retreat.

So if Redbeard's truck is parked in the road mere yards from his home, because his father, Captain Watson, is standing in the bed of the truck, and the Gump that Redbeard reasonably believes has been terrorizing the neighborhood by illegally trespassing in the middle of the night, repeatedly, and several guns have been stolen during the recent crime wave, and Gump is running directly towards Redbeard despite repeated pleas and won't stop perusing Redbeard...

Then Gump gets shot while attempting to steal Redbeard's shotgun right out of his warm alive hands....

Is that action by Gump deserving of a Darwin award?

How could Gump have avoided this?

No, that would not qualify because thinking someone "has been terrorizing the neighborhood by illegally trespassing in the middle of the night" because that is not a felony. Also, there's no evidence said trespasser took the gun (singular). And Arbery was running towards the truck because he was being boxed in by two vehicles after being chased for several minutes.

And the hillbillies did not witness any crime that day. And they never saw Arbery commit a felony on that day or any other day. They did not see a weapon on Arbery as they chased him down. They were also safely in their truck while Arbery was running down the street so they had no reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

So let's examine who did have a stand your ground defense....

Arbery might have while he was being chased for several minutes and even being struck by one of the vehicles. But being unarmed, he did not have the ability to use lethal force against 3 men in 2 vehicles. Then one of the vehicles stops ahead of him and the driver exits brandishing a shot gun. Arbery is 100 feet away. Arbery is at that point, no threat whatsoever to Travis. Travis' shotgun, however, is a threat from that distance to Arbery. So it's Arbery who has the legal right to stand his ground as he heads towards the truck, not Travis.

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

"standing your ground," doesn’t literally mean standing in one spot on the ground.

What does it mean to you?

To me, it means a person facing a reasonable belief of an imminent attack that could result in death or great bodily harm can resort to self-defense which could include lethal force without first attempting to retreat. What does it mean to you?

thats a perfect description of the video lol

 

[Faun]

"standing your ground," doesn’t literally mean standing in one spot on the ground.

What does it mean to you?

Stand your ground does not apply. For it presumes that the individual standing has done nothing to instigate the altercation. If you were on the street. Awaiting the arrival of a friend. And were accosted by a miscreant. Then Stand Your Ground would be appropriate. It is in fact the very reason they passed such laws.

Travis was not standing his ground. Either by text or by intent of the statute. The defense of Stand your Ground would not be allowed if it was offered. And should not be.

Travis is facing a lifetime in prison for his crimes. And in Georgia we know he commuted those crimes. By the collective standard that is our understanding of Georgia Norms and laws, Travis is the criminal. That is why he remains in Jail awaiting Trial. That is why he was denied bail, as were the co-defendants.

translation; by chasing a criminal you provoked them and are automatically liable to be attacked

from now on never chase someone you suspect of committing a crime and you won't have to worry about provoking them to commit an act of violence

Of course the next time an undercover cop is chasing someone they can turn around and kill him by claiming his Chase provoked their violence of action

good job boys

I did not discuss Self Defense. That has been covered previously. I answered the question concerning Stand Your Ground. Or do you deny that the intent of stand your ground was when a victim was attacked without provocation by a criminal?

Stand your ground is designed to determine who was the aggressor

In any given incident when there is plenty of opportunity to retreat and someone actually covers ground in an effort to engage another party it's pretty clear who the aggressor is

By providing legal protection to those who do not cover ground in an effort to confront another individual you give Society a chance to do the right thing

For instance if arberry were actually jogging and two murderous klansman pulled up in a pickup truck pointing weapons at him and screaming "I'm going to kill NIGG*ER" then it would be perfectly reasonable for him to pull a gun and kill both of them as he would have no duty to retreat and a legitimate fear of great bodily harm or death

That's why citizen's arrest is such a dangerous thing to do because the person who you're trying to detain has a lot of opportunity to kill you

Trouble for you social justice fantasy Warriors is the fact that the McMichaels were sitting still having given up their Pursuit when they were closed on confronted and subsequently attacked

Stand your ground is an extension of the Castle Doctrine. It ended for criminal and civil litigation the need to retreat from threat when the person was doing nothing wrong. If you are in your home and someone enters unbidden. You do not need to lock yourself in a bathroom to hide from them. Your home is your castle.

when on the street going about your day. You do not need to retreat before the criminal aggressor. Providing you are doing nothing to instigate or exacerbate the altercation. The Stand your Ground and Castle Doctrine vanish as options when you pursue someone. You are no longer standing your ground. You are in fact pursuing someone who is retreating.

Your legal authority to pursue someone is dependent upon the situation as is your lawful authority to use force. In Georgia we long ago decided that the excuse “I thought” was not sufficient. You had to catch them in the act.

What you can’t do is treat the law like a Chinese Restaurant. You can’t pick one from Column A and two from Column B. When you start with one, you are stuck with it. What you want is for people to hop from law to law like they are playing hopscotch.

According to you it was perfectly reasonable and legal to set off in pursuit. You said it was a valid Citizens Arrest situation. And you have repudiated that and then embraced it and then repudiated it again. The sequence of events in totality are criminal. You can’t isolate one moment and claim that moment absent all other considerations was legal and right. Context matters.

If you throw a brick through a car window. Criminal. If you smash the same window to rescue a dog on a hot day. Legal. Context, the why. Not just the what. The why. The intent if you will.

The Why determines if what you did, the actions, were legal or a criminal act. As does the sequence of events leading to the event.

A man attacks you with a baseball bat. You shoot him. Self defense. He pursued you from the bar you just left. Still self defense. He was angry that you had grabbed his girlfriend’s ass and punched him in the mouth. Ok. Self defense is looking a little shakier. Your weapon is being carried illegally. You are in a lot of trouble. Understand now?

I never refuted anything I said...

to reiterate Ad nauseam a citizen's arrest was a perfectly reasonable thing to do under the circumstances but if Travis McMichael had run Maude down and shot him then you might have a case but the fact is the McMichaels were standing still when Maude made the conscious decision to close on them and attack

The McMichaels were standing their ground in the middle of the road after having pursued arberry

arberry realized that men who were pursuing him we're standing in the middle of the road very likely waiting for him

with nearly half of a football field in between the two individuals maude decided to close directly on his Target but when Travis McMichael shouldered his shotgun Maude realized that he was going to get shot if he continued to charge directly at him so he pulled the sneak attack around the truck and got his dumb ass shot anyway

* you understand now?

what the hell was this experienced criminal thinking???

"hey there's the two guys who were chasing me earlier and one of them is now holding a shotgun standing in the middle of the road"

" I guess I should continue running directly at them and if they stand in my way punch them in the throat"

it's not like he was trapped in a dark alley with armed assailants closing in from both directions he had plenty of reasonable opportunities to escape or just keep on "jogging"

He wasn't forced to attack anyone and had no justifiable reason to believe these men were going to shoot him if he continued to flee

The McMichaels could not be standing their ground. Not according to the law. They are ineligible for that defense.

so arberry was just out for a casual jog and decided to simply veer to the right to avoid the men who were chasing him??

why not duck between the houses...or was he worried about TRESSPASSING?!?!

LOL

He didn't have to duck between the houses. He was legally allowed to stand his ground, which he what he tried to do.

 

[Faun]

"standing your ground," doesn’t literally mean standing in one spot on the ground.

What does it mean to you?

To me, it means a person facing a reasonable belief of an imminent attack that could result in death or great bodily harm can resort to self-defense which could include lethal force without first attempting to retreat. What does it mean to you?

thats a perfect description of the video lol

Yes, it is. Thank you.

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

"standing your ground," doesn’t literally mean standing in one spot on the ground.

What does it mean to you?

To me, it means a person facing a reasonable belief of an imminent attack that could result in death or great bodily harm can resort to self-defense which could include lethal force without first attempting to retreat.

So if Redbeard's truck is parked in the road mere yards from his home, because his father, Captain Watson, is standing in the bed of the truck, and the Gump that Redbeard reasonably believes has been terrorizing the neighborhood by illegally trespassing in the middle of the night, repeatedly, and several guns have been stolen during the recent crime wave, and Gump is running directly towards Redbeard despite repeated pleas and won't stop perusing Redbeard...

Then Gump gets shot while attempting to steal Redbeard's shotgun right out of his warm alive hands....

Is that action by Gump deserving of a Darwin award?

How could Gump have avoided this?

No, that would not qualify because thinking someone "has been terrorizing the neighborhood by illegally trespassing in the middle of the night" because that is not a felony. Also, there's no evidence said trespasser took the gun (singular). And Arbery was running towards the truck because he was being boxed in by two vehicles after being chased for several minutes.

And the hillbillies did not witness any crime that day. And they never saw Arbery commit a felony on that day or any other day. They did not see a weapon on Arbery as they chased him down. They were also safely in their truck while Arbery was running down the street so they had no reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

So let's examine who did have a stand your ground defense....

Arbery might have while he was being chased for several minutes and even being struck by one of the vehicles. But being unarmed, he did not have the ability to use lethal force against 3 men in 2 vehicles. Then one of the vehicles stops ahead of him and the driver exits brandishing a shot gun. Arbery is 100 feet away. Arbery is at that point, no threat whatsoever to Travis. Travis' shotgun, however, is a threat from that distance to Arbery. So it's Arbery who has the legal right to stand his ground as he heads towards the truck, not Travis.

he stood his ground by running up to them and attacking from around 50 yards LOL

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

"standing your ground," doesn’t literally mean standing in one spot on the ground.

What does it mean to you?

Stand your ground does not apply. For it presumes that the individual standing has done nothing to instigate the altercation. If you were on the street. Awaiting the arrival of a friend. And were accosted by a miscreant. Then Stand Your Ground would be appropriate. It is in fact the very reason they passed such laws.

Travis was not standing his ground. Either by text or by intent of the statute. The defense of Stand your Ground would not be allowed if it was offered. And should not be.

Travis is facing a lifetime in prison for his crimes. And in Georgia we know he commuted those crimes. By the collective standard that is our understanding of Georgia Norms and laws, Travis is the criminal. That is why he remains in Jail awaiting Trial. That is why he was denied bail, as were the co-defendants.

translation; by chasing a criminal you provoked them and are automatically liable to be attacked

from now on never chase someone you suspect of committing a crime and you won't have to worry about provoking them to commit an act of violence

Of course the next time an undercover cop is chasing someone they can turn around and kill him by claiming his Chase provoked their violence of action

good job boys

I did not discuss Self Defense. That has been covered previously. I answered the question concerning Stand Your Ground. Or do you deny that the intent of stand your ground was when a victim was attacked without provocation by a criminal?

Stand your ground is designed to determine who was the aggressor

In any given incident when there is plenty of opportunity to retreat and someone actually covers ground in an effort to engage another party it's pretty clear who the aggressor is

By providing legal protection to those who do not cover ground in an effort to confront another individual you give Society a chance to do the right thing

For instance if arberry were actually jogging and two murderous klansman pulled up in a pickup truck pointing weapons at him and screaming "I'm going to kill NIGG*ER" then it would be perfectly reasonable for him to pull a gun and kill both of them as he would have no duty to retreat and a legitimate fear of great bodily harm or death

That's why citizen's arrest is such a dangerous thing to do because the person who you're trying to detain has a lot of opportunity to kill you

Trouble for you social justice fantasy Warriors is the fact that the McMichaels were sitting still having given up their Pursuit when they were closed on confronted and subsequently attacked

Stand your ground is an extension of the Castle Doctrine. It ended for criminal and civil litigation the need to retreat from threat when the person was doing nothing wrong. If you are in your home and someone enters unbidden. You do not need to lock yourself in a bathroom to hide from them. Your home is your castle.

when on the street going about your day. You do not need to retreat before the criminal aggressor. Providing you are doing nothing to instigate or exacerbate the altercation. The Stand your Ground and Castle Doctrine vanish as options when you pursue someone. You are no longer standing your ground. You are in fact pursuing someone who is retreating.

Your legal authority to pursue someone is dependent upon the situation as is your lawful authority to use force. In Georgia we long ago decided that the excuse “I thought” was not sufficient. You had to catch them in the act.

What you can’t do is treat the law like a Chinese Restaurant. You can’t pick one from Column A and two from Column B. When you start with one, you are stuck with it. What you want is for people to hop from law to law like they are playing hopscotch.

According to you it was perfectly reasonable and legal to set off in pursuit. You said it was a valid Citizens Arrest situation. And you have repudiated that and then embraced it and then repudiated it again. The sequence of events in totality are criminal. You can’t isolate one moment and claim that moment absent all other considerations was legal and right. Context matters.

If you throw a brick through a car window. Criminal. If you smash the same window to rescue a dog on a hot day. Legal. Context, the why. Not just the what. The why. The intent if you will.

The Why determines if what you did, the actions, were legal or a criminal act. As does the sequence of events leading to the event.

A man attacks you with a baseball bat. You shoot him. Self defense. He pursued you from the bar you just left. Still self defense. He was angry that you had grabbed his girlfriend’s ass and punched him in the mouth. Ok. Self defense is looking a little shakier. Your weapon is being carried illegally. You are in a lot of trouble. Understand now?

I never refuted anything I said...

to reiterate Ad nauseam a citizen's arrest was a perfectly reasonable thing to do under the circumstances but if Travis McMichael had run Maude down and shot him then you might have a case but the fact is the McMichaels were standing still when Maude made the conscious decision to close on them and attack

The McMichaels were standing their ground in the middle of the road after having pursued arberry

arberry realized that men who were pursuing him we're standing in the middle of the road very likely waiting for him

with nearly half of a football field in between the two individuals maude decided to close directly on his Target but when Travis McMichael shouldered his shotgun Maude realized that he was going to get shot if he continued to charge directly at him so he pulled the sneak attack around the truck and got his dumb ass shot anyway

* you understand now?

what the hell was this experienced criminal thinking???

"hey there's the two guys who were chasing me earlier and one of them is now holding a shotgun standing in the middle of the road"

" I guess I should continue running directly at them and if they stand in my way punch them in the throat"

it's not like he was trapped in a dark alley with armed assailants closing in from both directions he had plenty of reasonable opportunities to escape or just keep on "jogging"

He wasn't forced to attack anyone and had no justifiable reason to believe these men were going to shoot him if he continued to flee

The McMichaels could not be standing their ground. Not according to the law. They are ineligible for that defense.

so arberry was just out for a casual jog and decided to simply veer to the right to avoid the men who were chasing him??

why not duck between the houses...or was he worried about TRESSPASSING?!?!

LOL

He didn't have to duck between the houses. He was legally allowed to stand his ground, which he what he tried to do.

so IF he would have STOOD his ground what would the mcmichels have done?

 

[Faun]

"standing your ground," doesn’t literally mean standing in one spot on the ground.

What does it mean to you?

Stand your ground does not apply. For it presumes that the individual standing has done nothing to instigate the altercation. If you were on the street. Awaiting the arrival of a friend. And were accosted by a miscreant. Then Stand Your Ground would be appropriate. It is in fact the very reason they passed such laws.

Travis was not standing his ground. Either by text or by intent of the statute. The defense of Stand your Ground would not be allowed if it was offered. And should not be.

Travis is facing a lifetime in prison for his crimes. And in Georgia we know he commuted those crimes. By the collective standard that is our understanding of Georgia Norms and laws, Travis is the criminal. That is why he remains in Jail awaiting Trial. That is why he was denied bail, as were the co-defendants.

translation; by chasing a criminal you provoked them and are automatically liable to be attacked

from now on never chase someone you suspect of committing a crime and you won't have to worry about provoking them to commit an act of violence

Of course the next time an undercover cop is chasing someone they can turn around and kill him by claiming his Chase provoked their violence of action

good job boys

I did not discuss Self Defense. That has been covered previously. I answered the question concerning Stand Your Ground. Or do you deny that the intent of stand your ground was when a victim was attacked without provocation by a criminal?

Stand your ground is designed to determine who was the aggressor

In any given incident when there is plenty of opportunity to retreat and someone actually covers ground in an effort to engage another party it's pretty clear who the aggressor is

By providing legal protection to those who do not cover ground in an effort to confront another individual you give Society a chance to do the right thing

For instance if arberry were actually jogging and two murderous klansman pulled up in a pickup truck pointing weapons at him and screaming "I'm going to kill NIGG*ER" then it would be perfectly reasonable for him to pull a gun and kill both of them as he would have no duty to retreat and a legitimate fear of great bodily harm or death

That's why citizen's arrest is such a dangerous thing to do because the person who you're trying to detain has a lot of opportunity to kill you

Trouble for you social justice fantasy Warriors is the fact that the McMichaels were sitting still having given up their Pursuit when they were closed on confronted and subsequently attacked

Stand your ground is an extension of the Castle Doctrine. It ended for criminal and civil litigation the need to retreat from threat when the person was doing nothing wrong. If you are in your home and someone enters unbidden. You do not need to lock yourself in a bathroom to hide from them. Your home is your castle.

when on the street going about your day. You do not need to retreat before the criminal aggressor. Providing you are doing nothing to instigate or exacerbate the altercation. The Stand your Ground and Castle Doctrine vanish as options when you pursue someone. You are no longer standing your ground. You are in fact pursuing someone who is retreating.

Your legal authority to pursue someone is dependent upon the situation as is your lawful authority to use force. In Georgia we long ago decided that the excuse “I thought” was not sufficient. You had to catch them in the act.

What you can’t do is treat the law like a Chinese Restaurant. You can’t pick one from Column A and two from Column B. When you start with one, you are stuck with it. What you want is for people to hop from law to law like they are playing hopscotch.

According to you it was perfectly reasonable and legal to set off in pursuit. You said it was a valid Citizens Arrest situation. And you have repudiated that and then embraced it and then repudiated it again. The sequence of events in totality are criminal. You can’t isolate one moment and claim that moment absent all other considerations was legal and right. Context matters.

If you throw a brick through a car window. Criminal. If you smash the same window to rescue a dog on a hot day. Legal. Context, the why. Not just the what. The why. The intent if you will.

The Why determines if what you did, the actions, were legal or a criminal act. As does the sequence of events leading to the event.

A man attacks you with a baseball bat. You shoot him. Self defense. He pursued you from the bar you just left. Still self defense. He was angry that you had grabbed his girlfriend’s ass and punched him in the mouth. Ok. Self defense is looking a little shakier. Your weapon is being carried illegally. You are in a lot of trouble. Understand now?

I never refuted anything I said...

to reiterate Ad nauseam a citizen's arrest was a perfectly reasonable thing to do under the circumstances but if Travis McMichael had run Maude down and shot him then you might have a case but the fact is the McMichaels were standing still when Maude made the conscious decision to close on them and attack

The McMichaels were standing their ground in the middle of the road after having pursued arberry

arberry realized that men who were pursuing him we're standing in the middle of the road very likely waiting for him

with nearly half of a football field in between the two individuals maude decided to close directly on his Target but when Travis McMichael shouldered his shotgun Maude realized that he was going to get shot if he continued to charge directly at him so he pulled the sneak attack around the truck and got his dumb ass shot anyway

* you understand now?

what the hell was this experienced criminal thinking???

"hey there's the two guys who were chasing me earlier and one of them is now holding a shotgun standing in the middle of the road"

" I guess I should continue running directly at them and if they stand in my way punch them in the throat"

it's not like he was trapped in a dark alley with armed assailants closing in from both directions he had plenty of reasonable opportunities to escape or just keep on "jogging"

He wasn't forced to attack anyone and had no justifiable reason to believe these men were going to shoot him if he continued to flee

The McMichaels could not be standing their ground. Not according to the law. They are ineligible for that defense.

so arberry was just out for a casual jog and decided to simply veer to the right to avoid the men who were chasing him??

why not duck between the houses...or was he worried about TRESSPASSING?!?!

LOL

LOLOL

Lemme get this right ... you think Arbery was "worried about trespassing," but at the same time, you suggest he could have ducked in between houses -- which is also trespassing. Not many people are dumb enough to destroy their own arguments like that. Kudos to you for pulling it off.

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

"standing your ground," doesn’t literally mean standing in one spot on the ground.

What does it mean to you?

Stand your ground does not apply. For it presumes that the individual standing has done nothing to instigate the altercation. If you were on the street. Awaiting the arrival of a friend. And were accosted by a miscreant. Then Stand Your Ground would be appropriate. It is in fact the very reason they passed such laws.

Travis was not standing his ground. Either by text or by intent of the statute. The defense of Stand your Ground would not be allowed if it was offered. And should not be.

Travis is facing a lifetime in prison for his crimes. And in Georgia we know he commuted those crimes. By the collective standard that is our understanding of Georgia Norms and laws, Travis is the criminal. That is why he remains in Jail awaiting Trial. That is why he was denied bail, as were the co-defendants.

translation; by chasing a criminal you provoked them and are automatically liable to be attacked

from now on never chase someone you suspect of committing a crime and you won't have to worry about provoking them to commit an act of violence

Of course the next time an undercover cop is chasing someone they can turn around and kill him by claiming his Chase provoked their violence of action

good job boys

I did not discuss Self Defense. That has been covered previously. I answered the question concerning Stand Your Ground. Or do you deny that the intent of stand your ground was when a victim was attacked without provocation by a criminal?

Stand your ground is designed to determine who was the aggressor

In any given incident when there is plenty of opportunity to retreat and someone actually covers ground in an effort to engage another party it's pretty clear who the aggressor is

By providing legal protection to those who do not cover ground in an effort to confront another individual you give Society a chance to do the right thing

For instance if arberry were actually jogging and two murderous klansman pulled up in a pickup truck pointing weapons at him and screaming "I'm going to kill NIGG*ER" then it would be perfectly reasonable for him to pull a gun and kill both of them as he would have no duty to retreat and a legitimate fear of great bodily harm or death

That's why citizen's arrest is such a dangerous thing to do because the person who you're trying to detain has a lot of opportunity to kill you

Trouble for you social justice fantasy Warriors is the fact that the McMichaels were sitting still having given up their Pursuit when they were closed on confronted and subsequently attacked

Stand your ground is an extension of the Castle Doctrine. It ended for criminal and civil litigation the need to retreat from threat when the person was doing nothing wrong. If you are in your home and someone enters unbidden. You do not need to lock yourself in a bathroom to hide from them. Your home is your castle.

when on the street going about your day. You do not need to retreat before the criminal aggressor. Providing you are doing nothing to instigate or exacerbate the altercation. The Stand your Ground and Castle Doctrine vanish as options when you pursue someone. You are no longer standing your ground. You are in fact pursuing someone who is retreating.

Your legal authority to pursue someone is dependent upon the situation as is your lawful authority to use force. In Georgia we long ago decided that the excuse “I thought” was not sufficient. You had to catch them in the act.

What you can’t do is treat the law like a Chinese Restaurant. You can’t pick one from Column A and two from Column B. When you start with one, you are stuck with it. What you want is for people to hop from law to law like they are playing hopscotch.

According to you it was perfectly reasonable and legal to set off in pursuit. You said it was a valid Citizens Arrest situation. And you have repudiated that and then embraced it and then repudiated it again. The sequence of events in totality are criminal. You can’t isolate one moment and claim that moment absent all other considerations was legal and right. Context matters.

If you throw a brick through a car window. Criminal. If you smash the same window to rescue a dog on a hot day. Legal. Context, the why. Not just the what. The why. The intent if you will.

The Why determines if what you did, the actions, were legal or a criminal act. As does the sequence of events leading to the event.

A man attacks you with a baseball bat. You shoot him. Self defense. He pursued you from the bar you just left. Still self defense. He was angry that you had grabbed his girlfriend’s ass and punched him in the mouth. Ok. Self defense is looking a little shakier. Your weapon is being carried illegally. You are in a lot of trouble. Understand now?

I never refuted anything I said...

to reiterate Ad nauseam a citizen's arrest was a perfectly reasonable thing to do under the circumstances but if Travis McMichael had run Maude down and shot him then you might have a case but the fact is the McMichaels were standing still when Maude made the conscious decision to close on them and attack

The McMichaels were standing their ground in the middle of the road after having pursued arberry

arberry realized that men who were pursuing him we're standing in the middle of the road very likely waiting for him

with nearly half of a football field in between the two individuals maude decided to close directly on his Target but when Travis McMichael shouldered his shotgun Maude realized that he was going to get shot if he continued to charge directly at him so he pulled the sneak attack around the truck and got his dumb ass shot anyway

* you understand now?

what the hell was this experienced criminal thinking???

"hey there's the two guys who were chasing me earlier and one of them is now holding a shotgun standing in the middle of the road"

" I guess I should continue running directly at them and if they stand in my way punch them in the throat"

it's not like he was trapped in a dark alley with armed assailants closing in from both directions he had plenty of reasonable opportunities to escape or just keep on "jogging"

He wasn't forced to attack anyone and had no justifiable reason to believe these men were going to shoot him if he continued to flee

The McMichaels could not be standing their ground. Not according to the law. They are ineligible for that defense.

so arberry was just out for a casual jog and decided to simply veer to the right to avoid the men who were chasing him??

why not duck between the houses...or was he worried about TRESSPASSING?!?!

LOL

LOLOL

Lemme get this right ... you think Arbery was "worried about trespassing," but at the same time, you suggest he could have ducked in between houses -- which is also trespassing. Not many people are dumb enough to destroy their own arguments like that. Kudos to you for pulling it off.

"standing your ground," doesn’t literally mean standing in one spot on the ground.

What does it mean to you?

Stand your ground does not apply. For it presumes that the individual standing has done nothing to instigate the altercation. If you were on the street. Awaiting the arrival of a friend. And were accosted by a miscreant. Then Stand Your Ground would be appropriate. It is in fact the very reason they passed such laws.

Travis was not standing his ground. Either by text or by intent of the statute. The defense of Stand your Ground would not be allowed if it was offered. And should not be.

Travis is facing a lifetime in prison for his crimes. And in Georgia we know he commuted those crimes. By the collective standard that is our understanding of Georgia Norms and laws, Travis is the criminal. That is why he remains in Jail awaiting Trial. That is why he was denied bail, as were the co-defendants.

translation; by chasing a criminal you provoked them and are automatically liable to be attacked

from now on never chase someone you suspect of committing a crime and you won't have to worry about provoking them to commit an act of violence

Of course the next time an undercover cop is chasing someone they can turn around and kill him by claiming his Chase provoked their violence of action

good job boys

I did not discuss Self Defense. That has been covered previously. I answered the question concerning Stand Your Ground. Or do you deny that the intent of stand your ground was when a victim was attacked without provocation by a criminal?

Stand your ground is designed to determine who was the aggressor

In any given incident when there is plenty of opportunity to retreat and someone actually covers ground in an effort to engage another party it's pretty clear who the aggressor is

By providing legal protection to those who do not cover ground in an effort to confront another individual you give Society a chance to do the right thing

For instance if arberry were actually jogging and two murderous klansman pulled up in a pickup truck pointing weapons at him and screaming "I'm going to kill NIGG*ER" then it would be perfectly reasonable for him to pull a gun and kill both of them as he would have no duty to retreat and a legitimate fear of great bodily harm or death

That's why citizen's arrest is such a dangerous thing to do because the person who you're trying to detain has a lot of opportunity to kill you

Trouble for you social justice fantasy Warriors is the fact that the McMichaels were sitting still having given up their Pursuit when they were closed on confronted and subsequently attacked

Stand your ground is an extension of the Castle Doctrine. It ended for criminal and civil litigation the need to retreat from threat when the person was doing nothing wrong. If you are in your home and someone enters unbidden. You do not need to lock yourself in a bathroom to hide from them. Your home is your castle.

when on the street going about your day. You do not need to retreat before the criminal aggressor. Providing you are doing nothing to instigate or exacerbate the altercation. The Stand your Ground and Castle Doctrine vanish as options when you pursue someone. You are no longer standing your ground. You are in fact pursuing someone who is retreating.

Your legal authority to pursue someone is dependent upon the situation as is your lawful authority to use force. In Georgia we long ago decided that the excuse “I thought” was not sufficient. You had to catch them in the act.

What you can’t do is treat the law like a Chinese Restaurant. You can’t pick one from Column A and two from Column B. When you start with one, you are stuck with it. What you want is for people to hop from law to law like they are playing hopscotch.

According to you it was perfectly reasonable and legal to set off in pursuit. You said it was a valid Citizens Arrest situation. And you have repudiated that and then embraced it and then repudiated it again. The sequence of events in totality are criminal. You can’t isolate one moment and claim that moment absent all other considerations was legal and right. Context matters.

If you throw a brick through a car window. Criminal. If you smash the same window to rescue a dog on a hot day. Legal. Context, the why. Not just the what. The why. The intent if you will.

The Why determines if what you did, the actions, were legal or a criminal act. As does the sequence of events leading to the event.

A man attacks you with a baseball bat. You shoot him. Self defense. He pursued you from the bar you just left. Still self defense. He was angry that you had grabbed his girlfriend’s ass and punched him in the mouth. Ok. Self defense is looking a little shakier. Your weapon is being carried illegally. You are in a lot of trouble. Understand now?

I never refuted anything I said...

to reiterate Ad nauseam a citizen's arrest was a perfectly reasonable thing to do under the circumstances but if Travis McMichael had run Maude down and shot him then you might have a case but the fact is the McMichaels were standing still when Maude made the conscious decision to close on them and attack

The McMichaels were standing their ground in the middle of the road after having pursued arberry

arberry realized that men who were pursuing him we're standing in the middle of the road very likely waiting for him

with nearly half of a football field in between the two individuals maude decided to close directly on his Target but when Travis McMichael shouldered his shotgun Maude realized that he was going to get shot if he continued to charge directly at him so he pulled the sneak attack around the truck and got his dumb ass shot anyway

* you understand now?

what the hell was this experienced criminal thinking???

"hey there's the two guys who were chasing me earlier and one of them is now holding a shotgun standing in the middle of the road"

" I guess I should continue running directly at them and if they stand in my way punch them in the throat"

it's not like he was trapped in a dark alley with armed assailants closing in from both directions he had plenty of reasonable opportunities to escape or just keep on "jogging"

He wasn't forced to attack anyone and had no justifiable reason to believe these men were going to shoot him if he continued to flee

The McMichaels could not be standing their ground. Not according to the law. They are ineligible for that defense.

so arberry was just out for a casual jog and decided to simply veer to the right to avoid the men who were chasing him??

why not duck between the houses...or was he worried about TRESSPASSING?!?!

LOL

actually I think it was pretty obvious that I was joking when I suggested he was worried about trespassing....

the actual quote:

so arberry was just out for a casual jog and decided to simply veer to the right to avoid the men who were chasing him??

why not duck between the houses...or was he worried about TRESSPASSING?!?!

LOL

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

"standing your ground," doesn’t literally mean standing in one spot on the ground.

What does it mean to you?

Stand your ground does not apply. For it presumes that the individual standing has done nothing to instigate the altercation. If you were on the street. Awaiting the arrival of a friend. And were accosted by a miscreant. Then Stand Your Ground would be appropriate. It is in fact the very reason they passed such laws.

Travis was not standing his ground. Either by text or by intent of the statute. The defense of Stand your Ground would not be allowed if it was offered. And should not be.

Travis is facing a lifetime in prison for his crimes. And in Georgia we know he commuted those crimes. By the collective standard that is our understanding of Georgia Norms and laws, Travis is the criminal. That is why he remains in Jail awaiting Trial. That is why he was denied bail, as were the co-defendants.

translation; by chasing a criminal you provoked them and are automatically liable to be attacked

from now on never chase someone you suspect of committing a crime and you won't have to worry about provoking them to commit an act of violence

Of course the next time an undercover cop is chasing someone they can turn around and kill him by claiming his Chase provoked their violence of action

good job boys

I did not discuss Self Defense. That has been covered previously. I answered the question concerning Stand Your Ground. Or do you deny that the intent of stand your ground was when a victim was attacked without provocation by a criminal?

Stand your ground is designed to determine who was the aggressor

In any given incident when there is plenty of opportunity to retreat and someone actually covers ground in an effort to engage another party it's pretty clear who the aggressor is

By providing legal protection to those who do not cover ground in an effort to confront another individual you give Society a chance to do the right thing

For instance if arberry were actually jogging and two murderous klansman pulled up in a pickup truck pointing weapons at him and screaming "I'm going to kill NIGG*ER" then it would be perfectly reasonable for him to pull a gun and kill both of them as he would have no duty to retreat and a legitimate fear of great bodily harm or death

That's why citizen's arrest is such a dangerous thing to do because the person who you're trying to detain has a lot of opportunity to kill you

Trouble for you social justice fantasy Warriors is the fact that the McMichaels were sitting still having given up their Pursuit when they were closed on confronted and subsequently attacked

Stand your ground is an extension of the Castle Doctrine. It ended for criminal and civil litigation the need to retreat from threat when the person was doing nothing wrong. If you are in your home and someone enters unbidden. You do not need to lock yourself in a bathroom to hide from them. Your home is your castle.

when on the street going about your day. You do not need to retreat before the criminal aggressor. Providing you are doing nothing to instigate or exacerbate the altercation. The Stand your Ground and Castle Doctrine vanish as options when you pursue someone. You are no longer standing your ground. You are in fact pursuing someone who is retreating.

Your legal authority to pursue someone is dependent upon the situation as is your lawful authority to use force. In Georgia we long ago decided that the excuse “I thought” was not sufficient. You had to catch them in the act.

What you can’t do is treat the law like a Chinese Restaurant. You can’t pick one from Column A and two from Column B. When you start with one, you are stuck with it. What you want is for people to hop from law to law like they are playing hopscotch.

According to you it was perfectly reasonable and legal to set off in pursuit. You said it was a valid Citizens Arrest situation. And you have repudiated that and then embraced it and then repudiated it again. The sequence of events in totality are criminal. You can’t isolate one moment and claim that moment absent all other considerations was legal and right. Context matters.

If you throw a brick through a car window. Criminal. If you smash the same window to rescue a dog on a hot day. Legal. Context, the why. Not just the what. The why. The intent if you will.

The Why determines if what you did, the actions, were legal or a criminal act. As does the sequence of events leading to the event.

A man attacks you with a baseball bat. You shoot him. Self defense. He pursued you from the bar you just left. Still self defense. He was angry that you had grabbed his girlfriend’s ass and punched him in the mouth. Ok. Self defense is looking a little shakier. Your weapon is being carried illegally. You are in a lot of trouble. Understand now?

I never refuted anything I said...

to reiterate Ad nauseam a citizen's arrest was a perfectly reasonable thing to do under the circumstances but if Travis McMichael had run Maude down and shot him then you might have a case but the fact is the McMichaels were standing still when Maude made the conscious decision to close on them and attack

The McMichaels were standing their ground in the middle of the road after having pursued arberry

arberry realized that men who were pursuing him we're standing in the middle of the road very likely waiting for him

with nearly half of a football field in between the two individuals maude decided to close directly on his Target but when Travis McMichael shouldered his shotgun Maude realized that he was going to get shot if he continued to charge directly at him so he pulled the sneak attack around the truck and got his dumb ass shot anyway

* you understand now?

what the hell was this experienced criminal thinking???

"hey there's the two guys who were chasing me earlier and one of them is now holding a shotgun standing in the middle of the road"

" I guess I should continue running directly at them and if they stand in my way punch them in the throat"

it's not like he was trapped in a dark alley with armed assailants closing in from both directions he had plenty of reasonable opportunities to escape or just keep on "jogging"

He wasn't forced to attack anyone and had no justifiable reason to believe these men were going to shoot him if he continued to flee

The McMichaels could not be standing their ground. Not according to the law. They are ineligible for that defense.

so arberry was just out for a casual jog and decided to simply veer to the right to avoid the men who were chasing him??

why not duck between the houses...or was he worried about TRESSPASSING?!?!

LOL

He didn't have to duck between the houses. He was legally allowed to stand his ground, which he what he tried to do.

so IF he would have STOOD his ground what would the mcmichels have done?

Faun

so IF he would have STOOD his ground what would the mcmichels have done?

 

[Faun]

"standing your ground," doesn’t literally mean standing in one spot on the ground.

What does it mean to you?

Stand your ground does not apply. For it presumes that the individual standing has done nothing to instigate the altercation. If you were on the street. Awaiting the arrival of a friend. And were accosted by a miscreant. Then Stand Your Ground would be appropriate. It is in fact the very reason they passed such laws.

Travis was not standing his ground. Either by text or by intent of the statute. The defense of Stand your Ground would not be allowed if it was offered. And should not be.

Travis is facing a lifetime in prison for his crimes. And in Georgia we know he commuted those crimes. By the collective standard that is our understanding of Georgia Norms and laws, Travis is the criminal. That is why he remains in Jail awaiting Trial. That is why he was denied bail, as were the co-defendants.

translation; by chasing a criminal you provoked them and are automatically liable to be attacked

from now on never chase someone you suspect of committing a crime and you won't have to worry about provoking them to commit an act of violence

Of course the next time an undercover cop is chasing someone they can turn around and kill him by claiming his Chase provoked their violence of action

good job boys

I did not discuss Self Defense. That has been covered previously. I answered the question concerning Stand Your Ground. Or do you deny that the intent of stand your ground was when a victim was attacked without provocation by a criminal?

Stand your ground is designed to determine who was the aggressor

In any given incident when there is plenty of opportunity to retreat and someone actually covers ground in an effort to engage another party it's pretty clear who the aggressor is

By providing legal protection to those who do not cover ground in an effort to confront another individual you give Society a chance to do the right thing

For instance if arberry were actually jogging and two murderous klansman pulled up in a pickup truck pointing weapons at him and screaming "I'm going to kill NIGG*ER" then it would be perfectly reasonable for him to pull a gun and kill both of them as he would have no duty to retreat and a legitimate fear of great bodily harm or death

That's why citizen's arrest is such a dangerous thing to do because the person who you're trying to detain has a lot of opportunity to kill you

Trouble for you social justice fantasy Warriors is the fact that the McMichaels were sitting still having given up their Pursuit when they were closed on confronted and subsequently attacked

Stand your ground is an extension of the Castle Doctrine. It ended for criminal and civil litigation the need to retreat from threat when the person was doing nothing wrong. If you are in your home and someone enters unbidden. You do not need to lock yourself in a bathroom to hide from them. Your home is your castle.

when on the street going about your day. You do not need to retreat before the criminal aggressor. Providing you are doing nothing to instigate or exacerbate the altercation. The Stand your Ground and Castle Doctrine vanish as options when you pursue someone. You are no longer standing your ground. You are in fact pursuing someone who is retreating.

Your legal authority to pursue someone is dependent upon the situation as is your lawful authority to use force. In Georgia we long ago decided that the excuse “I thought” was not sufficient. You had to catch them in the act.

What you can’t do is treat the law like a Chinese Restaurant. You can’t pick one from Column A and two from Column B. When you start with one, you are stuck with it. What you want is for people to hop from law to law like they are playing hopscotch.

According to you it was perfectly reasonable and legal to set off in pursuit. You said it was a valid Citizens Arrest situation. And you have repudiated that and then embraced it and then repudiated it again. The sequence of events in totality are criminal. You can’t isolate one moment and claim that moment absent all other considerations was legal and right. Context matters.

If you throw a brick through a car window. Criminal. If you smash the same window to rescue a dog on a hot day. Legal. Context, the why. Not just the what. The why. The intent if you will.

The Why determines if what you did, the actions, were legal or a criminal act. As does the sequence of events leading to the event.

A man attacks you with a baseball bat. You shoot him. Self defense. He pursued you from the bar you just left. Still self defense. He was angry that you had grabbed his girlfriend’s ass and punched him in the mouth. Ok. Self defense is looking a little shakier. Your weapon is being carried illegally. You are in a lot of trouble. Understand now?

I never refuted anything I said...

to reiterate Ad nauseam a citizen's arrest was a perfectly reasonable thing to do under the circumstances but if Travis McMichael had run Maude down and shot him then you might have a case but the fact is the McMichaels were standing still when Maude made the conscious decision to close on them and attack

The McMichaels were standing their ground in the middle of the road after having pursued arberry

arberry realized that men who were pursuing him we're standing in the middle of the road very likely waiting for him

with nearly half of a football field in between the two individuals maude decided to close directly on his Target but when Travis McMichael shouldered his shotgun Maude realized that he was going to get shot if he continued to charge directly at him so he pulled the sneak attack around the truck and got his dumb ass shot anyway

* you understand now?

what the hell was this experienced criminal thinking???

"hey there's the two guys who were chasing me earlier and one of them is now holding a shotgun standing in the middle of the road"

" I guess I should continue running directly at them and if they stand in my way punch them in the throat"

it's not like he was trapped in a dark alley with armed assailants closing in from both directions he had plenty of reasonable opportunities to escape or just keep on "jogging"

He wasn't forced to attack anyone and had no justifiable reason to believe these men were going to shoot him if he continued to flee

The McMichaels could not be standing their ground. Not according to the law. They are ineligible for that defense.

so arberry was just out for a casual jog and decided to simply veer to the right to avoid the men who were chasing him??

why not duck between the houses...or was he worried about TRESSPASSING?!?!

LOL

LOLOL

Lemme get this right ... you think Arbery was "worried about trespassing," but at the same time, you suggest he could have ducked in between houses -- which is also trespassing. Not many people are dumb enough to destroy their own arguments like that. Kudos to you for pulling it off.

"standing your ground," doesn’t literally mean standing in one spot on the ground.

What does it mean to you?

Stand your ground does not apply. For it presumes that the individual standing has done nothing to instigate the altercation. If you were on the street. Awaiting the arrival of a friend. And were accosted by a miscreant. Then Stand Your Ground would be appropriate. It is in fact the very reason they passed such laws.

Travis was not standing his ground. Either by text or by intent of the statute. The defense of Stand your Ground would not be allowed if it was offered. And should not be.

Travis is facing a lifetime in prison for his crimes. And in Georgia we know he commuted those crimes. By the collective standard that is our understanding of Georgia Norms and laws, Travis is the criminal. That is why he remains in Jail awaiting Trial. That is why he was denied bail, as were the co-defendants.

translation; by chasing a criminal you provoked them and are automatically liable to be attacked

from now on never chase someone you suspect of committing a crime and you won't have to worry about provoking them to commit an act of violence

Of course the next time an undercover cop is chasing someone they can turn around and kill him by claiming his Chase provoked their violence of action

good job boys

I did not discuss Self Defense. That has been covered previously. I answered the question concerning Stand Your Ground. Or do you deny that the intent of stand your ground was when a victim was attacked without provocation by a criminal?

Stand your ground is designed to determine who was the aggressor

In any given incident when there is plenty of opportunity to retreat and someone actually covers ground in an effort to engage another party it's pretty clear who the aggressor is

By providing legal protection to those who do not cover ground in an effort to confront another individual you give Society a chance to do the right thing

For instance if arberry were actually jogging and two murderous klansman pulled up in a pickup truck pointing weapons at him and screaming "I'm going to kill NIGG*ER" then it would be perfectly reasonable for him to pull a gun and kill both of them as he would have no duty to retreat and a legitimate fear of great bodily harm or death

That's why citizen's arrest is such a dangerous thing to do because the person who you're trying to detain has a lot of opportunity to kill you

Trouble for you social justice fantasy Warriors is the fact that the McMichaels were sitting still having given up their Pursuit when they were closed on confronted and subsequently attacked

Stand your ground is an extension of the Castle Doctrine. It ended for criminal and civil litigation the need to retreat from threat when the person was doing nothing wrong. If you are in your home and someone enters unbidden. You do not need to lock yourself in a bathroom to hide from them. Your home is your castle.

when on the street going about your day. You do not need to retreat before the criminal aggressor. Providing you are doing nothing to instigate or exacerbate the altercation. The Stand your Ground and Castle Doctrine vanish as options when you pursue someone. You are no longer standing your ground. You are in fact pursuing someone who is retreating.

Your legal authority to pursue someone is dependent upon the situation as is your lawful authority to use force. In Georgia we long ago decided that the excuse “I thought” was not sufficient. You had to catch them in the act.

What you can’t do is treat the law like a Chinese Restaurant. You can’t pick one from Column A and two from Column B. When you start with one, you are stuck with it. What you want is for people to hop from law to law like they are playing hopscotch.

According to you it was perfectly reasonable and legal to set off in pursuit. You said it was a valid Citizens Arrest situation. And you have repudiated that and then embraced it and then repudiated it again. The sequence of events in totality are criminal. You can’t isolate one moment and claim that moment absent all other considerations was legal and right. Context matters.

If you throw a brick through a car window. Criminal. If you smash the same window to rescue a dog on a hot day. Legal. Context, the why. Not just the what. The why. The intent if you will.

The Why determines if what you did, the actions, were legal or a criminal act. As does the sequence of events leading to the event.

A man attacks you with a baseball bat. You shoot him. Self defense. He pursued you from the bar you just left. Still self defense. He was angry that you had grabbed his girlfriend’s ass and punched him in the mouth. Ok. Self defense is looking a little shakier. Your weapon is being carried illegally. You are in a lot of trouble. Understand now?

I never refuted anything I said...

to reiterate Ad nauseam a citizen's arrest was a perfectly reasonable thing to do under the circumstances but if Travis McMichael had run Maude down and shot him then you might have a case but the fact is the McMichaels were standing still when Maude made the conscious decision to close on them and attack

The McMichaels were standing their ground in the middle of the road after having pursued arberry

arberry realized that men who were pursuing him we're standing in the middle of the road very likely waiting for him

with nearly half of a football field in between the two individuals maude decided to close directly on his Target but when Travis McMichael shouldered his shotgun Maude realized that he was going to get shot if he continued to charge directly at him so he pulled the sneak attack around the truck and got his dumb ass shot anyway

* you understand now?

what the hell was this experienced criminal thinking???

"hey there's the two guys who were chasing me earlier and one of them is now holding a shotgun standing in the middle of the road"

" I guess I should continue running directly at them and if they stand in my way punch them in the throat"

it's not like he was trapped in a dark alley with armed assailants closing in from both directions he had plenty of reasonable opportunities to escape or just keep on "jogging"

He wasn't forced to attack anyone and had no justifiable reason to believe these men were going to shoot him if he continued to flee

The McMichaels could not be standing their ground. Not according to the law. They are ineligible for that defense.

so arberry was just out for a casual jog and decided to simply veer to the right to avoid the men who were chasing him??

why not duck between the houses...or was he worried about TRESSPASSING?!?!

LOL

actually I think it was pretty obvious that I was joking when I suggested he was worried about trespassing....

the actual quote:

so arberry was just out for a casual jog and decided to simply veer to the right to avoid the men who were chasing him??

why not duck between the houses...or was he worried about TRESSPASSING?!?!

LOL

"actually I think it was pretty obvious that I was joking when I suggested he was worried about trespassing...."

So you admit no one should take you seriously.

I already knew that.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Arberry was the one MOVING dumbass

you are a liar. TM was moving to counter AA’s escape. This was his path right up to the first shot:

The jury will see this in better graphic than mine. So you best come up with a defense other than TM was standing still or moved a few feet from the moment he got out of the truck and aimed his shotgun at TM’s feet causing AA to swerve to avoid him.

TM has a shadow that follows him when he moved.

His shadow followed TM from that passenger side door to a point at least 6 ft out ahead of the truck (black X top image). That’s why the jury will know without a shadow of a doubt that he repositioned himself there and fired the first shot.

He ran 20 feet in an aggressive motion to intersect with AA’s path of escape and also he told police he shot AA when he squared up as if to attack.

Only an idiot would try to claim that TM was standing his ground and suffered a surprise attack.