- Nov 14, 2011
- 120,688
- 65,173
- 2,635
Are you joking again? Is anyone supposed to take you seriously?Faunso IF he would have STOOD his ground what would the mcmichels have done?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 arberry was just out for a casual jog and decided to simply veer to the right to avoid the men who were chasing him??I never refuted anything I said...Stand your ground is designed to determine who was the aggressortranslation; by chasing a criminal you provoked them and are automatically liable to be attackedWhat does it mean to you?"standing your ground," doesn’t literally mean standing in one spot on the ground.
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.
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?
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?
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.
why not duck between the houses...or was he worried about TRESSPASSING?!?!
LOL
so IF he would have STOOD his ground what would the mcmichels have done?
