waiting.....

Fingers crossed . . . .

https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/ahmaud-arbery-trial-jury-deliberations-wednesday

Guilty

For sure?

I had a feeling it would go that way.

when will the burning and looting begin??

I knew those guys were going to the Big House.

They did two things wrong.

1) Harder to claim self defense when you are the aggressor.

2) The shot a protected species.

Bullshitt verdict !!!!!!!!!

How were they charged with 9 counts each, more than one murder, etc. They only had one get shot correct?

Mainly #2 , had the jogger been white it would have been a different story

This ^^^^^^^^^[

Let the celebratory rioting, arson, and looting begin ... I mean continue...

Are you really that ignorant of the law, or are you making some kind of a joke?

All on most counts.

PREZACTLY. I predicted the same.

Absolutely. They did what any good citizen should.

Why where they found guilty of four counts of felony murder?


Jurors found Travis McMichael guilty of malice murder, four counts of felony murder, two counts of aggravated assault, false imprisonment and criminal attempt to commit a felony.

The jury also found Greg McMichael guilty of four counts of felony murder, two counts of aggravated assault, false imprisonment and criminal attempt to commit a felony. Jurors found him not guilty on charges of malice murder.

Finally, the jury found the McMichaels' neighbor, William "Roddie" Bryan, guilty of felony murder and aggravated assault.

Yikes, even the video dude.

Oh well, as I said, I figured it wouldn't go well.

Jeepers, I thought it was only one guy.

Thanksgiving in the big house.

Those dudes were fuggn idiots. I won't lose a minutes sleep over it.

At least the nig is still dead. He richly earned it.

Guilty - exactly what they deserved.

I hope you never have to protect anything.

C'mon man

meanwhile in Chicago and other infested cities, another 20-40 rats get killed every day by their own and THEY DON'T CARE, not the rats nor the libtards

there is somethething else going on here

Just what were they protecting at the time?

Right verdict, those guys are fuggin idiots.

Their neighborhood.

ETA: If I ever see anyone rooting around your place, I'll just ignore it. You would deserve it.

Get a grip, they weren’t protecting a darn thing. Shoot first, ask questions later. They are just plain and simple ignorant men.

That just makes you a pure azzhole. Even if you were Muslim, black and a pure azzhole ( and it’s obvious you are the 3rd) I would still call popo, but I wouldn’t put my life in harms way for your property.

Slick “Al” Sharpton, just added his vitriol racist comments to an already needless agenda. The man is nothing more than a race baiting opportunist. He should be indicted along with all the other race baiting, ignorant BS idiots. My rant. MTG

They didn't shoot. The nig shot himself.

Their culture.

You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. That's not what happened. One of the men was armed with a shotgun, fully within his rights. The perp grabbed it, and in the struggle for control, the perp was shot. When the perp grabbed his shotgun, what was he supposed to do? Let him have it?

Bummer. Not surprised though. Protect the weaker species at all cost. Lots more of this coming as criminals get more emboldened. This crap will continue until victims consistently fight back.

If someone tried to kidnap me at gunpoint, I'd fight back too.

Yup.

Are you a burglar, with a rap sheet the length of your arm, pretending to be a jogger in work boots?

Dumbass.

If you were 30 yards away, would you run back for a tussle?

If it hadn't been for Roddie Bryan's video, the outcome for this trial would have been far different.

Everything the McMichael's did was within the confines of GA law.

We'll let creeps skulk around your place too.

Does it matter?

My guess is jogging will be the new sport of afro entrepreneurs.

Hell they wander down every other street w a DG bag and claim just coming back from shopping.

Not using sidewalk, walk on othrr side of cars on street jacking handles/ peeking in, or walking up to windows of house.

Jus shoppin man, see da bag.

One actually lives in neighborhood across the road. Been busted a bunch of times, whole family like that.

I wont lose sleep if a good ol boy blasts the fugger when hes messin w his property

It does. He was reasonably believed to be the burglar that had been plaguing the neighborhood. Citizens are permitted to detain for the police those reasonably believed to be burglars, and citizens may be armed while doing so. If you are a burglar, you should expect to be confronted by armed citizens. Or at least that is the case in any sane society.

I thought this place was all about MYOB. I see something I don't like, I call the cops and let them handle it if it isn't happening to me. It's not like anyone's life or safety was at risk. I wonder how hero they feel about themselves now.

Neighbors call neighbors around here when something seems out of place. It's what good folks do.

Bullsh*t.

They rolled the dice, now they can deal with the consequences of their choices.

I'm calling BS on your BS.

That's nice. Which Georgia statute allows this?

It sure is.

On the bright side the world is rid of a shifty troublemaker and three real dumb idiots. I see win, win, win, win.

Actually it's not Bullsh*t - it's Georgia Law. Here citizens have the right to make a citizen's arrest, but Kemp changed the law after this mess.

Once again, the media tried the case without any comprehension of the law and the jury got this one wrong.

Rules and regulations regarding citizen’s arrest in Georgia can be found under Section 17-4-60 through 61 of the Georgia Criminal Code. Established during the late 1860s, the law authorizes private citizens to make an arrest of others if a crime is committed in their presence or in cases in which they have immediate knowledge that one occurred.

The idea of the police in the US is that they are hired to do what citizens have a right to do with regard to criminals, but don't wish to be burdened themselves with doing. Can the police detain someone suspected of being a burglar? If you answer yes, you lose.

I think if you check into it, you'll see that the law was already changed.

Yep. Corrected, Kemp signed the changes AFTER all this mess.

We don't permit the application of laws ex post facto in the US.

LOL, the "idea of the police" isn't relevant, and it's not a statute that allows ordinary citizens to detain other citizens.

That's another irrelevant factoid. Your statement that I called bullsh*t on wasn't specific to the Arbery case, or any other case. It was a broad generalization not even constrained by the state, and state laws are what applies to a citizen detaining another citizen.

MY guess would be the jury wasn't presented with enough evidence they believed that

"a crime is committed in their presence or in cases in which they have immediate knowledge that one occurred".


Or they just ignored the law as it was written at the time of the event and wanted to go home for Turkey Day.

I've been protecting our place for over 15 years........haven't had an issue yet nor have I went and rounded up 2 neighbors (closest is about 750 yards through the woods) to go follow someone around my neighborhood.........be honest here, look at those 3 so called men.......couch potato, 'hold my beer' type.....do you want them protecting your place? Sad, Sad........

Creepy is not threatening to me.

Everybody knows you can't chase a f ugging guy down and kill him because he was jogging and you suspected he was a burglar. Guys got what they deserved, guilty.

Now the moron that advised them to have all their cases tried together needs their heads examined.

It's hilarious to watch the political right fall all over themselves in this thread the EXACT same way the left did following the Kenosha verdict. Nothing but emotion and butthurt. Makes it easy to tell the thinkers from the hacks.

From the stuff I read a while back, they tried to stop him.
No shots, no pointing gun at him and were of some distance.

Arbery chose to engage an armed person.

Guess he was tired of jogging.
Woulda thought w that much practice he coulda skipped away.

Post a pic. I doubt you're much to look at either. You should probably stay on the couch too. And let men handle security.

There was no evidence or indication any crime was committed, he had no visible weapon, he was running away and being chased. He posed no threat when running away, and the idiots had no justification to make any "citizen's arrest". They had become the aggressors.

All parties involved were acting like idiots. The outcome was what ruined all their lives. They all had better choices.

Do think it was a bad call to attenpt to detain the jogger.
Even if they saw him steal stuff, or their own stuff.

Political climate what it is.

Groids go for broke over the most petty or stupid of crap.

Their fault, but youll get the blame.

Only good thing is they didnt wound him.
Dunno if three going to prison was worth the price of a scumbag thief.

They rolled the dice.

Rolled................


and crapped out.

Think about police tactics in crowd confrontation situations. The front line isn't generally having firearms deployed. The second or third rank may. It's backup, or overwatch.

The couch potato with the shotgun should have been in overwatch, while the other couch potatoes did the 'interview'.

I have no doubt Arbery was casing the neighborhood, but things got out of control due to stupidity all around.

Trespassing is evidence of a crime.

Didn't he shoot 3 times ?, that's what I heard on the tape anyway...I'd have thought the guy would let go of the shotgun on the first shot.

And, did they know for a fact, on that day at that time (not prior occasions ) that the kid didn't have permission to be in that house?

And, in GA, is trespassing a crime that rises to the level of a citizens' arrest?

Asking, because I would if I were on the jury.

This. ^^^^

Then I've got a bunch of hunters to shoot this year, based on your "logic".

You dumbasses won't give it up, will you? Arbury didn't get shot until he tried to wrestle away a weapon.

Are you really that stupid or are you just an [bleep]?

Name the state in which the laws apply as you stated.

Contrast the Rittenhouse trial with the McMichaels' trial.

Arbery had much in common with Rittenhouse. Differences being Rittenhouse's persuers were mostly unarmed, while Arbery was unarmed.

Rittenhouse used his weapon in a righteous manner.

While McMichael did not.

He who brings a gun to the fight usually wins the first encounter. That does not mean they are exempt from prosecution.

There are three Geogia resident who I bet wish they had left their guns at home on the day they set out to intimidate a stranger who dared invade their neighborhood.

lol, panties in a wad when you talk in circles and nobody understands your logic.

Keep going, your doing a great job making a fool of yourself.

I wonder if crime/ thefts went down in the neighborhood after Arbery was shot?...Wouldn't that tell if they got the right guy or not?

My little hometown in Texas used to be a great place to live...Never had to worry about locking your doors, etc. Now you have to chain down everything you own to keep the meth heads from walking off with it, even in broad daylight. If this little Georgia town is like that, I can understand why these guys would be frustrated enough to go after Arbery. Probably sick of themselves and their neighbors losing everything they own...

I can see your point when you are devoid of the facts and believe everything the media told you to believe. Unfortunately, that is not what happened and the jury and Defense fuched it all up.

In regards to trying the cases together, I totally agree that was a massive miscalculation. But Roddie Bryan paid the biggest price for that so I'm not crying much for him. He's a fuching moron of note and deserves to be the head prison bitch for the rest of his life. They're going to be lovein on him for long time.

Got what they deserved.

OK, Georgia (before they changed the law as a result of this case.)

Reasonably believed or were guessing?

Had a burglary just occurred immediately prior to this incident?

I read today that GA law does not allow forced detention citizen arrest. I guess they have to agree to be detained?

Had these men previously ID’d the jogger and knew his rap sheet or was that after the fact?



I haven’t followed this trial much.

Ironbender read the post above yours .

The leftists of the Fire don't wish to be confused by the facts.

Ran out of cogent arguments, huh? Now enters name calling. I'm anything but left of far right, and you ran out of foolish assertions.

You twist facts the way the MSM did with the Rittenhouse case, i.e., we were told Rittenhouse ran around shooting people. No, he possessed a shotgun, and was himself attacked by Arbery, resulting in a struggle for possession, during which struggle Arbery was shot.

Some of us recognize that when a bunch of people in motor vehicles brandishing firearms have been chasing a person on foot across town for several minutes. Cursing, screaming, and threatening said person. Any reasonable person would recognize that as an attack.

Upon being run to the point of exhaustion by motorists, one of those motorists jumps out brandishing his shotgun to further his ATTACK.

Any reasonable person being attacked in this manner, after being run to the point of exhaustion, would know. He can either turn his back and try to walk away, and be shot in the back. Or he could attempt to fight back and possibly die as a result.

Most of the posters on this forum CLAIM they would fight back to their last breath in such a situation.

Is there any here who would claim that Arbery was not under attack????

Just like Kyle Rittenhouse was under attack????

Yeah, the guys attacking Kyle thought they were justified in their actions as well.

Justice has been properly served in both cases, except for the fact that Kyle should have never been arrested, nor should he have been faced with a trial.

LOL, talk about twisting the facts. "McMichael was attacked by Arbery." Yes he was, but you conveniently left out the part where he was running away and being chased down and detained by a non-LEO.

Well in actuality’s trespassing can be evidence of a crime, 2 years ago I damn near shot one.
Crime coming into my yard (trespassing) and taking a big ole dooker, really pizzed me off. Village has a leash ordinance, he wasn’t on one, so being really tired of this trespasser sh*ting on my lawn also not wanting to be demonized as the guy who shot poor innocent woofy, I called the sheriff and reported poor woofy had acted aggressively on my property and I damn near shot him and would next time.
Sheriff talks to poor innocent woofy’s owners.
Poor ole woofy never trespassed again, always on a leash or chain, piles of dog sh*t disappeared.

😁

True story.

Two years ago, Georgia law allowed any citizen to stop at gunpoint any other citizen whom they might suspect was guilty of a crime at some date in the past???????

Felony? Misdemeanor? Vague suspicion? Sure and certain knowledge? Observation?

None of that mattered?

You think? They could not possibly be more guilty.

Bottom line - the jury heard the States case, they also heard the defense rebuttal...........

And in short order, 2 1/2 days, they came to a verdict..............

I didn't watch the trail........... for those that did, was the Felony identified that Arbery was attempting to escape from????

You have to witness the crime, see it in action....suspicion or guesses won't hold up in court. What was the first thing the guy said in the 911 call ?.... "operator" what do you have to report ?'......"Idiot" there's a black guy running through our neighborhood.

Did any of you actually watch the trial and listen to recording and see the video ?

lol

There you go making up false facts again. No one pointed a gun at anyone till the gun was grabbed and a struggle for it ensued.

Local known thief just got popped by another local known thief. One dead, one going to prison for murder.

Two w one stone kinda deal.

Doesnt happen often enough.

Brandishing Hawkeye, Brandishing.

Most states have a legal definition, of which I am quite assured you are aware.

just for perspective:

Trespass with a weapon in Georgia is a misdemeanor.

As is pointing a weapon at someone..............

GA citizens arrest Law applies to those that are attempting to evade a Felony...............

Hadn't watched the trial or read any editorial on the case.
Was he convicted of various crimes?

That was one of my questions above that went unanswered.

He yelled "stop or I'll blow your head off" as he was running away....but ok nobody pointed a gun or threatened anyone first

lol

The shotgun was carried for self-defense. How is he supposed to conceal a shotgun? Not brandishing. Besides, you said gunpoint.

Anyone have a link to the original video released by the senior McMichael in the misguided attempt to gain sympathy for the actions of his son.

Wow, what an idiot. He sure miscalculated that one.

I do find it telling, how a bunch of blacks at work were literally crying over the zimmerman verdict. And the Minnesota BS....a few states away.

But never said chit about 8 and 12 yr old black kids killed 50 miles away in crossfire, innocent bystanders, killed by their own color.

Freakin children.

And nobody says chit.
Its always attention whoring no matter what with some folks.... cry for leverage or money.

Zero true compassion.

Source?

I

If you do not know how to carry a shotgun in a nonthreatening manner versus a threatening manner, you really should sell every gun you own for your own good.

It is not a subtle distinction.

As a matter of fact, I have carried an uncased shotgun down city sidewalks in a nonthreatening manner several times, and nobody batted an eye.

Of course it went unanswered, they're making up facts that are against the law as they post.

12 white jurors convicted 3 white men with a white judge, in a state where if you were a black guy you'd be running for your life too....I know I would be, chiit they'll string me up from the closest tree.

There's video tape of him in the construction site house, and walking out with nothing...there was nothing stolen. Then they claimed somebody stole something out of a boat a few weeks earlier, so it had to be that black guy...let's get a posse together with our white hoods and chase that tree monkey down.

At the ready isn't brandishing.

It was on the video tape, that they taped from their phone.

I stumbled across an internet search engine called Google a few days ago. I have a hunch if you searched something like Arbery blow your head off, you'd find it.

First I've heard of it.

"Google??"

It sure as [bleep] is when you have been chasing a man through the city streets screaming death threats at him.

It has been several months since I watched the video, and I can not review it today with present bandwidth. But as I remember, it showed McMichaels being very aggressive, including brandishing while Arbery did nothing except that which could be explained by fear.

Am I mistaken in my memory that younger McMichael was standing in the back of the pickup with his shotgun while his dad drove to pursue Arbery?

He admitted it on the stand, but said he was just trying to stop the kid from running.

Did any of you actually WATCH the trial ????

And nobody has responded to the FACT that he shot 3 times, striking him 2 of the 3 times with slugs....yeah he was holding the barrel lol

LOL, I'm not arguing with you man, but can you tell me more about this "google" thing??

I didn't look it up on Google, I saw him say it on the stand...straight from the horses mouth. They played vigilante justice without cause, and got convicted. The kid was running for his life scared chiitless, not saying he was an angel...but he hadn't committed a crime deserving of getting shot.

I agree with you. My post was in response to you saying you'd stumbled across this new thing called an "internet search engine" apparently called "google."

First I've heard of an engine that can search for things, so I'm skeptical. If it's true, then just anybody could educate himself on the facts, and that just don't seem right.


Ah sh*t, I just realized it was cluggins who said that!!! Apologies bwana.

It's all over Google from court reporters from all media, he said it
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/11/05/ahmaud-arbery-trial-opening-arguments/

“Stop, I’ll blow your f---ing head off,” Greg McMichael told police he warned Arbery


EDIT: Google help
https://www.google.com/search?q=McMichael+told+ahmaud+arbery+%22ill+blow+your+head+off%22&client=firefox-b-1-d&ei=ILaeYerALLawytMPx9650A4&ved=0ahUKEwjq0LP0_7H0AhU2mHIEHUdvDuoQ4dUDCA0&oq=McMichael+told+ahmaud+arbery+%22ill+blow+your+head+off%22&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAw6BwgAELADEEM6BwgAELADEB46BQgAEIAEOgYIABAHEB46CggAELEDEIMBEAo6BQgAEM0CSgQIQRgBUKkKWMPQAWDF7QFoAXAAeACAAaoBiAG5IpIBBDIuMzWYAQCgAQGgAQLIAQLAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz

So, you have nothing?

That’s not true in every state. Here in Louisiana you cannot legally hold anyone who wants to leave . The law here looks at it as if they want to leave , they are no longer a threat. You also cannot use deadly force to protect your property. Even firing warning shoots you are considered the aggressor. It’s screwed up , buts it’s the law here. At least that is what the CCW instructor told me two weeks ago when I took my refresher course .

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/11/05/ahmaud-arbery-trial-opening-arguments/

I didn't say it didn't happen. I just asked for a source. Thanks.

Makes no difference. If a cop under identical circumstances said it, would you have a problem with it? If no, you lose.

Really???? If I'd have been him I would have stopped and said "what's up? What do you guys need?" unless of course I had something to hide. Jesus people are fuggggin stupid.

And I don't care that he was black, he could have been white or asian. He had no business going for the shotgun, period. Let the po po come and sort things out. If those convicted had held him hostage then press charges on them. You don't try to grab a shotgun away from anyone trying to detain you, let the law handle it. Fugggin stupid fugggs abound.

The issue here is that there is no common sense or fear of repercussions for ones actions (white or black trash).

People suck and are stupid period.

+1

he was a pos and his removal makes the neighborhood much safer, they should be given medals for crimestopping not jail time, just think of all the shyte he was gonna do in his criminal career, they put a stop to that... permanently

....

Keyboard commando and law experts out in full force today…..lol

You and legal threads. LOLOLOL.

WERE THEY you stupid fuggg, don't even bring your shiet here talking about something you know absolutely nothing about. How about you go crawl into a river and drown since you don't have the legs to walk, piece of shiet.

The TRH school of self defense law is co-located w/ the nasty hamper medical clinic.

Stupid should hurt and those 3 dummies will soon be having their colons stretched. They make vigilantes look bad.


mike r

Truth!

Might be the first time you and I agree on something!

lolololol

Unfortunately, we are going to see much, much more of this sort of incident happening... de-funding police, police unwilling to confront black people, prosecutors turning criminals loose to prey on the public... etc.

We are going to see more untrained people "enforcing the law"...

TRH; aren’t you a lawyer?

And exactly how do YOU determine if several men with a shotgun and other weapons, shouting death threats at you are attempting to detain you? How do YOU determine they do not actually mean you kidnapping, grievous injury, or death.

Should we just tell our kids to jump in the van whenever some pedophile stops and tells them to?

Is there an actual difference?

Nah. I now agree that the BHA leaders are ass-clowns.

People really need to read and understand their state's self-defense laws. Something else to consider. For those that like to put their keyboard bravado on display on social media, reading this article should give you pause. https://www.npr.org/2021/11/18/1056813652/travis-mcmichael-ahmaud-arbery-trial-latest-testimony  Your social media history will be discovered, and if an issue can be made of your comments, it will.  

If Arbery had used deadly force in self-defense in that situation, he would have been completely justified.

Anyone trying to detain someone for suspected burglary or theft that doesn’t have stolen property on their person is opening themselves up for trouble. I’ll be damned if I’ll risk my life and future over a “suspected” stolen drill or saw or nail gun or ????….property crimes generally don’t rise to the standard of deadly force in my book. I don’t play neighborhood vigilante nor do I fancy myself captain America, others are welcome to do whatever they want but they need to remember that this is the potential outcome for sticking your neck out over a tool.

I don’t know if I agree with the verdict because I didn’t hear everything presented at trial but I’m not surprised that this is the outcome. I didn’t think it was smart when they did it and this verdict reaffirms my initial gut instinct.

Call the cops and maybe keep them in sight until the cops arrive.

Yea, cuz taking a load of shot to the belly is soooooo much better than complying lol.... Stupid Fuggggg

Exactly. I can see following at a safe distance and updating dispatch with locations but I’ll be damned if I am initiating a “felony stop”.

Bet he felt he had nothing to lose, based on having been a thief for some time.

Would think fighting for the gun take way more effort than running away.

Maybe he figured he was gonna get shot no matter what.

Culturally some folks push things to the max over and over and over.

Too many videos of that BS to list.

I agree with you but the Jigger could have waited till the cops arrived as well.

The problem is the Jigger (and Wiggers) think they can do as they please with no repercussions. If someone is holding a shotgun on you fuggin suck it up and wait till the po po gets there or take your medicine. Pretty simple really.

Too bad these dumbasses are going to prison.

And to ALL of you replying to this thread that haven't been around people like this you have no fuggin idea. There's WAY too many jackasses out there that think there should be no repercussions for their actions (black as well as white but ESPECIALLY black). If you haven't been around these people you can't fathom it. So IdahoShooter run your trap, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Times change. Fifty years ago this wouldn't have made local news. Now its world wide breaking news.

People fail to understand that others get to dictate the response.

Think both sides erred in that regard.

And both lost.

Trusting a jury to sort it out is a crap shoot.

The audio on the video is horrible.

I'd may just decide to take a shotgun from someone who was falsely imprisoning me.

Even if youre legal, fuggin around w stupids can be a bad deal

And if you ended up dead that's on you bro. Take your medicine or wait for the law, as stated.

Yep, and the dumbasses are gonna pay. Just as the dumbass who grabbed the shotgun paid.

You may be wise in choosing that course of action, but this is not necessarily about what you may choose to do under the same or similar circumstances. The relevant question is whether folks are within their rights to arm themselves in the context of an attempt to detain someone they reasonably believe is a burglar.

Take note that I did not say "within their rights to shoot someone for suspected burglary." That's not at issue. No one was shot for suspicion of burglary. The notion that burglary doesn't justify shooting someone is, therefore, completely irrelevant. All that's relevant is whether someone possesses a right to be armed while attempting to detain a burglar, or someone he reasonably believes is one.

Once you get there, it becomes a simple analysis of self-defense justification. If someone attacks you while you are armed within your rights, is lethal force in self-defense justified? That's it. That's the analysis. Your personal choices under similar circumstances might be interesting to discuss, but have no relevance to the analysis appropriate for this case.

Take the shotgun and you will die. When you could've just ran out of the neighborhood or into the woods were the retards couldn't chase you. Paul must be Jason Bourne, bad malfugga.

I really don't care that these guys are going to prison because they were stupid. I probably wouldn't have convicted them but it is what it is.

Like I said unless you have been around people that think they are untouchable or their actions have no reprecussions you probably wouldn't understand. I'm betting that's 90 percent of the people here.

You guys go for what you know, I'm done.

Yep.

A couple of questions for our legal scholars: If the jogger had pulled out a gun and shot the dummy that was pointing a gun in his direction could the jogger claim self defense? Even if he could not legally own a gun does the jogger have the right to self defense if in imminent jeopardy of death or great bodily harm?


mike r

Only if it were determined that he was not actually a burglar. In which case, he'd be in the right, and his actions in self-defense would therefore have been justified. His long criminal record would not help him in this claim, however.

You be very surprised how easy it is to take a service sized handgun or a long gun away from someone who is within arms reach. I used to regularly demonstrate this in training with my crews. I'd get someone to hold our dummy Beretta within arms reach. I'd tell them I was going to take it from them at some point during the conversation. I never failed, despite giving them warning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmQk3DnTcSs

Yep

I am certainly not a lawyer but he had not committed a burglary and prior convictions are rarely allowed to be presented in court. But you are the self defense attorney so please correct me if I am wrong. So you believe that he was innocent and in fear of death or great bodily harm and justified to use deadly force in self defense.

hmmmmmm...



mike r

It is a great thing to do. Does everybody grab the pitch forks and torches and run out to confront?

1860s. Before modern police departments, security systems and cell phones. Makes sense to me.

Don't listen to TRH. He's a damn idiot. First, it depends upon whose state law you are going to apply. Each state has different laws. In GA, you can lose your right to self-defense when you break into a building with the intent to commit a felony. Well, given that no felony was committed, it'd be damn hard to prove that he entered the house to commit a felony. Likewise it'd be impossible for the Klan brothers to have known his intent.

If the races were reversed in this scenario, TRH would be be calling for the hanging of shotgun boy.

But would the average person try to disarm or run? My ass would be running unless I was trapped. The deceased was angry that some idiot's were chasing him and grabbed said retards gun retard shoots. I don't have any training but charging an armed man and pulling the muzzle into my abdomen seems like a bad idea.

Yeah, kind of like a when idiots collide.

Good move, follow at a safe distance, get the cops on the phone, keep your ass outta court.

I remember when I went to Tulane U in the early 80's the KKK was listed in the yellow pages. Still the same ?

Would the average man who was guilty of no crimes, had been trying to run away for over 5 minutes, who was told he was going to have his head blown off and was being boxed in, allow himself to be falsely imprisoned or fight out of fear that he was going to in fact have his head blown off?

Jogger shmogger. If I hear about this thief being a jogger one more time, I'm gonna hurl! Who the hell goes jogging in Timberland boots with no socks? He was casing the place for things to steal, plain and simple!

Ron

He was? Did this come out during the trial?

He wasn't a jogger in my opinion, I don't know what the hell he was doing. But he was trespassing on private property, but he didn't break in and enter, and he didn't steal anything, and he was unarmed. The video tape clearly shows him walk in, look around, then walk out.

Either way you can't shoot someone because you believe they will commit a crime in the future, nor believe they did commit a crime...you have to have witnessed and know they committed the crime to hold them.

"Hey boy stop, we want to ask you some questions with shotguns...what are you running for ?"

lol

It’s not as simple as a black guy jogging down the road. It was a guy who illegally entered a house under construction looking for things to steal and the neighbors giving chase because someone who matches his description had broken in 4 times before. They have him on camera in the place.

Yep, Arbery may have been a full-blown, thieving piece of sh*t. I won’t defend him. Wasn’t worth killing him over some DeWalt screwdrivers. And sure as hell not worth throwing your life away.

If the government doesn’t provide, law, order, and justice, a lot of good people are going to do things that they don’t want to do. It is a travesty.

All they really had to do was follow this guy and call 911, hope for the best. But our "jogger" had nothing in hand, no proof, so, an overstep. Never mind they had separate counsel that slagged the others, not real smart.
Nothing about this was smart, so I can't get too worked up about the "justice" rendered. Be stupid, win stupid prizes -- ALL of them.

Yup, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. The Rittenhouse case was the same thing only different.

Well stated IMO.

I don’t agree with TRH in this case but he’s FAR from a “damn fool”. In fact over the years here his opinions and prognostications have proved to be quite accurate. Years back when this place was full of bloviating, loud mouthed, outspoken RINOs they liked to gang up on TRH with their KOTY bullshit…..they’re mostly gone now but their stupidity is NOT forgotten. TRH is still here and still right (more often than not) while they’ve taken their neo-con ball and impotent ideology and disappeared, lest they be reminded of their stupidity and made to eat crow. They LOVED deep state Bush, the “Patriot Act”, NSA and Constitutional violations because they desired security over freedom.

+1

Billy Bob, Jim Bob, and Bubba are fuggn idiots and got exactly what they deserve.

Yep, and no one was shot because anyone "believed he would commit a crime in the future, nor because anyone believed he committed a crime." He was shot because he grabbed someone's shotgun.

I didn't think the verdict would come in any other way. Three armed men pursuing and killing 1 unarmed man is tough to explain away. Tough luck for the neighbpr guy that didn't pull the trigger. Makes you want to be careful who you're with when you run people down for passing through your neighborhood.

Bb

I'll ask again...........

What FELONY were they using as the basis for a Citizens Arrest?????

Correct. The Zimmerman technique.

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that some people are not willing to be held at gunpoint illegally.

You cannot make up your own set of facts. No one held anyone at gunpoint. That's not in evidence.

A couple of rules regardless of self defense laws in your jurisdiction:

1) Ask yourself if whatever you’re defending is worth spending the rest of your life in prison. I’m guessing these guys would say it wasn’t now. But if they were somehow convicted defending their kids, they’d say that they would do it again if they had to.

2) Only shoot if you genuinely think your life is in danger, instead of looking for an excuse to shoot someone.

It'd be interesting to read some of the comments in the countless riot threads, by those who agree with this verdict.

You mean a Black guy, so this guy that didn't steal anything on their own video MUST be him.....lol

binder is a lawyer. brandon biden is a lawyer. kamala is a lawyer.

Well said!

I don’t think some people understand the gravity, the responsibility or the unintended consequences of what it means to “pull” a gun on another man. During the Rittenhouse trial my children and I had many conversations about different aspects of the trial but I could NOT reiterate enough that if a man points a gun at me (or them) all bets are off. If I ever have to pull my gun I expect to kill something which, if I do kill “something” I’ll have to answer for that decision in ways that I’ve considered and in ways that I’ve likely never considered.

My weapon only gets drawn to save a life.

I'm glad to see you've come around....

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers?

He got held at gunpoint. The video clearly shows it. Just to keep you from going full tard on me, I'd encourage you to look up the several definitions of held at gunpoint.

Hell, I'll fix your glitch right now. If you use a gun in any way in the process of falsely imprisoning someone, you should damn well expect some of them not to put up with your schidt.

Bingo.

There wasn't one. They had no basis for what they did. That's why they were found guilty of false imprisonment.

Yes. Also known as "commies anonymous"

What are your opinions of the Zimmerman verdict?

According to TRH, suspicion that he committed previous burglaries and was "trespassing".

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS
ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS
§ 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest
O.C.G.A. 17-4-60 (2010)
17-4-60. Grounds for arrest


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

If you are asking me, they got it right. That one should have never resulted in charges.

Really? Have you ever been party to an exchange of gunfire? Or party to the subsequent court proceedings?

Might as well. because as soon as you give up your ability to fight, you might as well figure you're dead anyway.

Like stated earlier. Most every person here claims they would fight back rather than surrender to those intent to do them harm.

Completely a different situation. Hence the verdict.

A crime was not committed in their presence and they had no immediate knowledge of any crime.

How so?

Still does not meet the legal requirement of witnessing a felonious act.

Exactly why claims of making a legal citizen's arrest were laughed out of the court room.

Well I don't really want to type out all the fact on a phone, but Zimmerman was attacked while he was on the phone with 911, then pulled a gun...after being physically assaulted. The GA guys decided to try and do some sort of citizens arrest for a something? Pulled a gun when the guy wouldn't stop and then blasted him when he went for the shotgun.

They made poor decisions and paid for them. Obviously

What makes you so sure that McMichaels would not have followed through on his threat "Blow your phugging head off" if Arbery had kept running?

Why should Arbery have disbelieved that threat?

You define things your way. The rest of the world will use commonly understood definitions.

Let three armed men chase you with motor vehicles for five minutes screaming threats to kill you. Then one of them leaps from the vehicle with gun "at ready position" and tell us you would not feel you were in eminent threat of death.

We have read far too many of your posts about how you felt an eminent threat from far more mundane events.

He ain't wrong...

define "held at gunpoint":

a: If you are held at gunpoint, someone is threatening to shoot and kill you if you do not obey them.

b; Idiom: at gunpoint. Under or as if under the threat of being shot. American Heritage® Dictionary of the English ...

c: experiencing or using a threat of killing with a gun

d: at gunpoint: while threatening someone or being threatened with a gun

Tell me again how Arbery was not "Held at gunpoint".

Immediacy. The dead guy was the only one reacting to an immediate threat to life or limb. There is nothing in this whole thread that rises to that.

^ ^ ^

Smart Boy chimes in, again.

No reply to my post??? You stupid fugggg

Have you ever been party to an excange of gunfire? Or party to the subsequent court proceedings; Stupid Fuggggg?

He was most certainly held at gunpoint dumbass, that's why he got shot.

You fuggin people are THICK!

Sorry, I said I was out of this...My bad

You go dumb asses

What? Take the law into their own hands because they saw a black guy and then murder him???

I know you wish this was allowed but it isn’t.

Actually, I have. On more than one occasion. The matters are on record at the Payette Co courthouse.

As the perpetrators are still alive, it would foolish to expound on the matter and possibly antagonize the issue at this point.

I will not comment on it further.

They saw a black guy in their white neighborhood and figured he was up to no good so they tried to grab him. In the old days they would have strung him up but times have changed.

Smartest thing you've said in the whole thread.

Sounds like a tough place. Any recent examples to cite?

Both made a stop. Both were attacked. So are you saying the GA guys shouldn't have had their weapons exposed... that's the difference?

You are missing a glaring difference in the two cases. Review the charges against the Georgia boys and see if one of the charges might be what precipitated the whole affair.

Ok, which one?

why did they try all 3 dumbf-ucks together? wasn't the moe howard haircut guy just following and videoing dumbf-uck Sr and Jr?

Judge? Jury? Executioner?

Pick one, you can’t be all three in this country under the law.

Dumbfuques abound.

False imprisonment is a felony in GA. Under GA self-defense laws there are three circumstances identified in which self-defense is not authorized. Surely this deep into the conversation you have troubled yourself with reading the applicable GA self defense laws right?

Arbery owns being shot. You don't run up to a guy holding a shotgun and try to grab it from him, unless you're either suicidal or really really stupid (or perhaps mentally disturbed), like that Paul Barnard fellow.

No. Again, they saw a man in their neighborhood trespassed (entered into a structure) who matched the description of someone who had done so four times previously.

As much as people want to make it about race, it isn’t about race. If the guy had legitimately been out for a jog through a white neighborhood, then you could make it about race. The minute he entered the structure illegally it became about the neighbors wanting to catch a trespasser.

Another person who has not read GA self-defense laws is rearing his head again.

Thank you.

I have done my best to usher this gaggle of tards toward reading GA self-defense laws. They refuse. Vitally important is one of the circumstances in which GA says you can't claim self-defense

Read the list of convictions on the Klan boys. Read the list of circumstances under which GA precludes the use of self-defense. Have your ah-ha moment...if you have an IQ above 80 that is.

So how is that different from what Zimmerman did?

could you just post a video of you reading them? kinda hung over here.

Since Georgia law allowed citizens arrest which allows citizens to detane law breakers. Then the false imprisonment is canceled out

Zimmerman was keeping Trayvon in sight. He was not restricting his movement. He was not falsely imprisoning Trayvon. It's important to note that Florida is not Georgia. State law matters.

All three guilty of murder? Justice?

I'll make it easy for you.

False imprisonment is a felony in GA. The Klan boys were convicted of false imprisonment.

Since you are too lazy to look it up, (b)(2) https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-3/article-2/16-3-21

That's why I have have been referring to the clan boys falsely imprisoning Arbery

NOT 'Law Breakers', in general or of any kind, but those that you witnessed or have REASONABLE and PROBABLE grounds, known to have committed a FELONIUS act and are trying to evade/elude capture.............

So Trayvon attacked Zimmerman for simply keeping him in sight? In the GA guys video, at what point would you say they successfully restricted this movement?

I understand the false imprisionment is the pretence. So why weren't they others charged with false imprisionment rather then murder. I admit that I have not researched this but justification doesn't neccesarly equal justice.

Why were they all tried together???? For that answer you would need to query the Defense council....

WHY were they all tried with charges of Felony Murder? Because ALL three participated in the Felony of false arrest and someone died while or in the process of the Felony being committed.......

That is why there was no 1st Degree charge, there wasn't INTENT..

IF Arbery had managed to gain control of a weapon and killed one of the three, the other two could still be charged with Felony Murder..... for they were in the process of committing a Felony and someone died, it matters not if it was one of their own or an innocent by stander.........

Muffin you do à good job explaining the legal situation and I appreciate that. especially without referring to people as lazy or stupid. But couldn't the jury of found the non shooters guilty of lesser crimes.

Exactly

Don't get hung up on the word successfully. Read GAs false imprisonment statute.

For me the combination of "I'll blow your head off" then getting out of the truck with a shotgun along Arbery's path of travel while the second vehicle came up from behind sealed the deal. At that point, I think the "confine" element of the law was met. I don't know what did it with the jurors.

What about Trayvon?

To be simple, again. Ahmaud Arbery was the only person that night in that place who was entitled by Georgia law to use deadly force.

LOL just STFU already

Ya, genius. LIke you know what you are talking about lol

So, when Arbery attacked Travis McMichaels in an attempt to snatch his shotgun, what was Travis McMichael's legal obligation, assuming he wished to avoid being charged with murder? Please be specific.

For a new guy it doesn't appear you have the ability to civilly converse without calling every member rude names...tell me, are you old enough to shave ?

.

That's not what Georgia law says, it's quite a bit more restrictive than what you stated, as far as who can make a citizen's arrest and for what.


It was also the centerpiece of the defense and as such would have been explained to the jury in detail multiple times by people infinitely more qualified on Georgia law (including the judge) than anyone here.

A jury of their peers heard those explanations of Georgia law, heard the evidence, and didn't buy that they acted in accordance with Georgia law.

That's how it's supposed to work, that's how it worked for Kyle Rittenhouse. What else does anyone need?

I'm waiting.

That's a false choice. His legal obligation was to not attempt to detain Arberry at gunpoint in the first place.

While committing a felony and actions that promote or provoke the other person to use force, you have backed yourself into a corner with little to no outs..

If you kill him this trial shows where it goes. If he kills your buddy you can still be charged with Felony Murder.

To answer your question though, back away and hope noone gets shot. But they were already 'too far in' for that.................

Are you saying jury's get it right 100% of the time and there is no room to debate their verdict?

For those of you that explain legal justification fine. But in no stretch of the law was this à just legal or moral verdict.

Not a false choice. At some point in the interaction, that choice forced itself upon Travis. Assuming Travis didn't wish to be charged with murder also, what was his legal obligation at that point? If you cannot answer the question, the reasoning behind your general argument is fatally flawed.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the self-defense angle in this case did not apply and this jury got it right.

No, it's not. His legal obligation was to not put himself in the position he put himself in. You do understand that, right?

I'm not sure I understand the arguing of a court case that has been settled, other than the punishment yet to be handed out ?

The jury gave it's verdict, judge will set sentencing...why all 3 went into trial together will be a lingering question of stupidity.

Could the same argument have been used for George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse?

Whose self défense do you choose? This was a wreck from the start bad deal. But the result is also à wreck.

No. Rittenhouse didn't attempt to detain anyone.

If he's not able to use lethal force to prevent it, that only leaves him the choice of handing Arbery the shotgun, i.e., handing a shotgun to someone fitting the description of a local felon? Setting aside the lunacy of handing a shotgun to a suspected felon in the midst of a confrontation with him, is it even legal to arm a suspected felon in Georgia?

Personal choice is something most don’t understand, make the right choice and life is good, but when the wrong choice is made it’s always somebody else fault for the outcome.
Kinda like walking into a bar full of Norwegians and shouting I hate worthless, porch swinging, pos Norwegians then blaming them for you getting your azz kicked.

LOL, earth to TRH. Would losing control of a shotgun during a struggle with a guy bigger and stronger than you be considered "arming a felon?"

Yeah, that's relevant and on point.

Nope, instead you could piss your pants, cry like a baby girl, and beg him not to shoot you.

How well does that usually work when a mob gets wound up?

Hawkeye I agree with your theory. If you are put in that position what would you guys do. Although I would hope I never put myself in that situation.

And that's at least ONE reason why you should not be in the possession of weapons while committing a FELONY......

RE: 'arming a felon in Georgia' being a crime......... You're already in the process of committing a Felony, the one that got you in this position, it seems moot....

Smokepole you lost your credibility.

Okay, let's assume the jury got it right, and Travis (with all lawful intention - after all, his intention was to detain a thief for the police, a commendable act) violated some technicality of false imprisonment law. At the point of Arbery's attack upon him, in his effort to wrest his shotgun from his grasp, what was Travis's legal obligation, assuming he wished not to compound his technical violation of the law (unbeknownst to him) with a murder charge?

A year and 9 months is a new guy, again you show your intelligence.

I'm 12 btw dumbass

You were a fuggin idiot on HPA and you're a fuggin idiot here. GFY

If we assume the jury got it right, nothing else matters, does it.

Zimmerman NEVER attempted to apprehend anyone! In direct contrast to McMichaels.

Zimmerman only followed at a distance, until Martin ambushed him from hiding.

Zimmerman was never an aggressor. Again in contrast to McMichaels.

Exactly why Zimmerman successfully plead self defense. While McMichaels and his Dad and buddy were properly convicted.

Back off!!!

I understand why you wish to evade the question as asked.

LOL, I didn't know I had any, but thanks.

So, hand him the shotgun he is in the midst of struggling to wrest from his hands? Really?

I answered the question, you just didn't see the answer, what with your blinders on.

If the jury got it right, then Travis gave up his right to self-defense by illegally detaining Arberry. So anything bad that happened after that was his fault, including shooting Arbery, himself, or a bystander.

So his "legal obligation" with respect to what he did from that time forward is a moot point, doesn't matter, and is 100% irrelevant.

You asked the question with a caveat... '...assuming he wished not to compound his technical violation of the law (unbeknownst to him) with a murder charge?...'

The ONLY way that can happen is if noone dies!!! Don't pull the trigger!!!

So YOU answer the question! How does he do that!?!?!?

I have to go spatchcock a Turkey..............

Anyone know which felonies Arbery was convicted of? Anyone got a link to a source?

Deep down, you guys know that the verdict constituted an injustice. Three people with the best of civic-minded intentions are being sent to prison for it. That's really what it comes down to. These three are a living sacrifice to the gods of wokeness. Our society is much poorer because of this verdict, and the consequences will be that folks will be even more reluctant to get involved in the face of crime.

I think conviction was the correct verdict, but Arbery was clearly a violent criminal and thief based on his record. It's quite likely the defendants were correct that he was looking to commit a crime, but they didn't see him committing one, and therefore couldn't justify trying to detain him.

The reality is in murder cases the character of the victim is not a justification. It is still murder to kill a scumbag.

Again, It was "Travis" and his mob who put Arbery in a fight or flight scenario. With ZERO legal justification. Arbery was run to the point of exhaustion, the option of flight was gone. All that was left was fight.

Arbery WAS legally justified in that fight. McMichaels was not.

McMichaels and his mob each made conscious decisions to put themself in that position. The entire incident was instigated by the third guy in the back with the video camera. Thus he bears legal responsibility for McMichaels actions.

The jury got it right.

He had convictions for carrying a gun at a school (which included fleeing arrest) and later stealing a TV. The TV might have been a misdemeanor.

He was also videoed trespassing in an under construction house multiple times, but oddly no evidence emerged that he stole anything.

There's not going to be a consensus :

HAPPY THANKSGIVING EVERYONE !!!!

I think their intentions were good, they didn't mean to kill him, and I wish he hadn't tried to grab the gun and the cops had showed up to sort it out.

But if you're gonna chase somebody down with a shotgun and attempt to detain them, you need to educate yourself on your state laws. And also, how to do it without bad things happening, like killing the guy when you don't mean to.

If you're not going to do those things, you have no business doing what they did.

MontanaMarine had one of the best observations on that; they went about it all wrong. They didn't have to put themselves in the position they put themselves in.

No, because in either case, Zimmerman and Rittenhouse were never the aggressor. They each were attacked on the street and acted purely in self defense.

McMichaels did the attacking in Georgia.

What's your source for that information?

Isn't it a matter of perspective whether Zimmerman was the aggressor? Couldn't "poor" Trayvon have perceived that he was being cut off from his path by a pursuing Zimmerman?

Smokepole you got your credibility back lol

Well, as long as we all agree (LOL) Happy Thanksgiving Dakota!

They were dumbasses and f-cked up, the jury got it right except for the guy videoing it.

No, you are leaving out the third choice. Don't put yourself in that situation in the first place. But that might require an IQ higher than room temperature which was not to be seen on that Georgia street on the day in question.

I agree with that. The minute they got out of the truck they put themselves in a bad position that ended badly for everyone involved. Just drives me nuts when I hear on the radio that 3 white dudes killed a black jogger.

So you think it consistent with the American legal tradition that a series of unfortunate, unintentional, violations of legal technicalities (typically only perceivable by legal experts) should result in long prison terms for those who fall on the wrong side of them?

Yes. Especially considering the circumstances.

At the point we're discussing, that's already history. Now take it from there.

Wrong on all accounts, per usual.

Those guys fricked up. They are also being sacrificed to the gods of wokeness. Had the exact situation occurred with a methy white guy, they would be home today. But it happened in an election year in a crucial state and it was necessary to drum everything up.

They were technically wrong. But I think justice would have been a plea to manslaughter and some time in the pen. They had no records, were good citizens, were trying, if misguidedly, to do what they perceived as right. This country was founded upon the idea of civic minded men picking up guns and protecting lives and property. If we’re going to get out of this mess we’re in now, a lot of them are going to have to do it again.

Those men did not set out to kill a black guy or anyone else. [bleep] spiraled, mainly based on the actions of the victim. Maybe he was justified. Maybe he was frightened. But there isn’t a soul in America with more than a room temperature IQ who actually believes Arberry would have come to any harm had he simply stopped and said, “What do you want?”

The deal with young black men is that they will fight. Some of them only know how to fight, nothing else. A confrontation with one is likely to escalate. They don’t follow the same rules of confrontations you grew up with. When it escalates, you are very likely to very quickly be in a fight for your life. In today’s climate, you had better be right.

Well said.

Yes well said !!

Hopefully those dick weeds enjoy prison food….and penis. They should have called the police instead of acting like idiots. They could be celebrating the holiday with loved ones but now they are probably getting raped and mad dogged for their cafeteria trays.

Oh well.

None of that matters one bit. Those dipshits had no legal right to stop Arbery, period. Their illegal (and stupid) actions caused the entire situation. End of story.

It matters if you don't want your community to turn into Portland.

They made their choices and can now pay the consequences.

It could much more accurately be stated that three stupid crackers thought they could reinstate 1870s street justice and lynching.

The modern legal system informed them of the error of those thoughts.

"Three people with the best of civic-minded intentions" do not charge around city streets standing in the back of a pickup screaming lethal threats while brandishing firearms.

They do not put themself in this position.
https://nypost.com/2020/05/15/gregory-mcmichael-leaked-the-ahmaud-arbery-video-report/

But vigilantes do!

Enjoy the schithole that Oregon is. I can see by your post that you well and truly deserve it.

Lol, can't defend your argument about the case so have to deflect. Typical.

No. Zimmerman stayed far back and never approached Martin.

Martin hid and laid in wait to ambush Zimmerman. There was much evidence to this including the previously mentioned phone call to his girl friend where he stated his intention to attack "the cracker" following him and talking on his phone.

No, I absolutely made the argument and you rejected it. Hell, I even said that they were wrong. You came back with your snarky ass. So, just enjoy the schithole that Oregon as become and continue to let cops let Antifa run wild in your streets. Meanwhile, in America we’re doing our best to keep that from happening.

If someone with only the best intentions, who hadn't observed you committing a crime tried to detain you at gunpoint, would you consider that a violation of your rights, or a "legal technicality?"

Antifa isn't running wild in the streets where I live, but nice deflection.

You live in Oregon and if they want to they will. Just call the cops and wait on them to come out and take care of the problem.

At that point you are already a felon.

At that point, I suppose you have put yourself in the situation where you can be carried by six or judged by twelve. Live, die, kill him, you are guilty of more grievous crimes than the guy you are trying to apprehend.

If you choose to make those choices, don't go to the public crying and looking for sympathy. Live with the choices you made and hope the Bubbas in prison do not quickly mete out to you the same justice you meted out on the street.

I'll tell you what his choice wasn't under GA law. Using deadly force in self defense. He relinquished that right when he committed the felony act of false imprisonment. The moral of this story is don't commit felonies if you want to use deadly force in self defense. See how easy that is?

Well, it does appear to be a good time and place to remind people to read their state's self-defense laws.

Lol, you're one ignorant dumbfugg. What state do you live in?

I disagree. But guaranteed, if people are paying attention, they won't make the same mistakes that these guys made.

Exactly.

Uh, no. The law was carried out justly. You sound EXACTLY like the political left following the Rittenhouse verdict.

Wonder what's on the menu for those dudes today? Cock with a side of cock?

Cops do that routinely, but no one had anyone at gunpoint in the Arbery case.

Retreat. When you retreat, you are no longer an imminent thread of death or serious bodily injury to the other party, so they can't legally use deadly force against you. If that's not an acceptable option for you, then boo hoo. You shouldn't have committed a felony that put you in that situation.

If you carry a firearm, open or concealed, at any time, regardless of what you happen to be doing at that moment.....

You better have a plan to deal with someone attempting to take it away from you.

There you go repeating things which have been shown to be untrue.

Maybe you should tell us your definition of "at gunpoint" so we can compare it to the dictionary definitions I cut and pasted earlier. Then we can compare it to what was seen in the video of Arbery's death.

Facts and truth DO matter.

At the point we're discussing, two people have a firm grasp of the shotgun. The only way for Travis to retreat would have been to let it go. Is that your suggestion for him?

OK, if someone not a cop, who didn't observe you committing a crime, with a shotgun, tried to detain you would you consider that a violation of your rights?

Yes they did. Just like you can't be bothered with reading the laws you are arguing, you can't be bothered with reading the various definitions of held at gunpoint. Someone even posted them for you earlier.

The ONLY definition that matters is Georgia law. And how the court interprets it.

In that case we have a conflict of interests (both parties feel they've been wronged), assuming I'm innocent while the fellow questioning me wants me to wait for the police. Best move in that case would be to wait for the police.

I'd wait for the LE, and try to survive another day on the planet. Civil action to follow.
If it gets pointed at me, I'm gonna go animal.

Funny how the black kid didn't have any choice. All on the other guys and yes they were wrong. But if they did commit à crime before the shooting that automatically makes them guilty. Is that like them not allowing Arbrys past criminal record to be heard.

I didn't ask what you would do in that situation, or what you think the "best move" would be. I asked if you would consider that a violation of your rights.

Doesn't matter you don't take bare hands to à gun fight.

I answered it. Assuming Arbery was innocent (which is a stretch), both parties would feel they had been wronged. Best course of action would be to wait for the police.

The kid fought them when a reasonable man would have stopped and said, “What the f-u-c-k do you crackers want?” They were not correct in their assumptions before instigating the interaction, therefore, they are responsible for what happened after.

That said, in a more normal case, they would have gotten a plea deal for manslaughter or something like that and THAT would have been much closer to justice than what they received. These guys are going to get sentenced like hardened criminals, killers, when they really were just a bunch of dumbfricks. In fact, probably only one of them was actually really stupid. He is the one who got out of the truck and did the shooting. The others were kind of along for the ride.

LOL, the question was whether YOU would consider it a violation of YOUR rights.

If you can't answer the question, just say so.

I haven't followed the case well enough to know, but they may have filed a motion to try separately and been denied. There is no right to separate trial.

Of course, as I said above. Both parties. In your hypothetical, that would include me as one of the parties. A smart person in Arbery's shoes would realize (again, assuming he's innocent, which is a stretch) that there was a mistake, and would wait for the police rather than essentially committing suicide by grabbing for the shotgun.

Not sure why that quote is attributed to me. I didn't write that.

I didn't ask if you would "feel you had been wronged." I don't even know what that means.

But if you're agreeing that someone detaining you in that situation is a violation of your rights, then it would be a violation or Arbery's rights too, would you agree?

Sorry.

You really expect us to believe, had you been in Arbery's shoes with armed men pursuing you and one jumping out of the truck armed with a shotgun, attempting to detain you.

That you would believe these criminals, yes criminals, they are actually engaged in felonious behavior at the moment.

Why would you believe the Police had even been summoned?

Why would you believe these criminals had any intention of you surviving this encounter? Often times criminals kill the witness.

For God's sake. You have told us that you are so paranoid of being attacked, that you keep a pistol plastic wrapped in the shower.

Now you tell us that a right minded individual would not attempt to defend himself when apprehended on street by three crazy crackers.

When would you have drawn your CCW and started shooting at the McMichaels? Arbery had no CCW. What choice did he have other than attempt to disarm what he thought was his would be killer?

Anybody got a good recommendation for a shower pistol? Sometimes I take baths so it has to work when submerged.

Objectively, it's not a violation of my rights (despite being innocent, and feeling wronged), because we have to make allowance for mistakes when folks are trying in good conscience to deal with crime, and not escalate all such situations to the point of death, since the police were on the way, at which point (assuming I'm innocent, a stretch in the case of Arbery) I can make my case to them, or a judge, or a jury.

Look, that’s just bullschit. Don’t pour it on too thick. That kid was there up to no good and he was running because he knew he was up to no good. And no, I’m not excusing the actions of the idiots but this guy was not thinking that these people were criminals intent on murdering him. He got caught fricking around in a house where he shouldn’t have been and he was trying to get away.

That’s what happened.

And hey, maybe he wasn’t up to any serious no good. Maybe he just got caught someplace where he shouldn’t have been.

Then why do you carry a CCW if it is easier and safer to capitulate to the demands of any who might accost you on your hikes?

My gun only gets used if my life is wrongly and imminently threatened. That's not what happened here vis a vis Arbery (although it is what happened here vis a vis Travis). Don't pretend to be stupid. These folks were asking someone to wait for the police because they had good reason to believe he was a burglar. He chose to run, and then to fight for the shotgun so that, presumably, he could shoot them.

You use the words feel, feeling and feelings often in your musings. You'd do very well to dump that word from your self-defense lexicon. If it's used anywhere in any state law, I am not familiar with it. "Belief" does appear in the language of self-defense law. It's used rather than the word feel for a reason.

Feel and believe are synonyms in the sense that I used them.