The murder of Ahmaud Arbery

[DinkinFlicka]

LOL

You're the numbskull that tried to make my post about race.

Not so much your post as the whole topic. You know, like most other folks are doing?

Trying to ignore any racially charged elements in this and similar incidents is the bare bones definition of willful ignorance.

 

[Rickyvol77]

Isn't the entire premise of lethal self defense is that it's justified if you FEEL like your life is in imminent danger?

In this case, how can you prove what the suspect was "feeling"? It's an assumption.
What if he was feeling like "oh sh*t, the police are coming to arrest me, i've got to try to take this dude out"

You can only go based on the eyewitness, forensic, and video evidence

 

[Weezer]

Not every case is the same. That guy got convicted because the other guy was backing away from him after pushing him down AND because he had a history of road rage issues.

The fact both father and son had histories in law says they should have known they had no legal authority to detain the suspect on a public road. He wasn't on their property. He wasn't caught in commission of a crime. He was on a public road, and they were not law enforcement.

 

[Chris4Vols22]

In this case, how can you prove what the suspect was "feeling"? It's an assumption.
What if he was feeling like "oh sh*t, the police are coming to arrest me, i've got to try to take this dude out"

You can only go based on the eyewitness, forensic, and video evidence

No one can prove their feelings in a court of law, yet we both know the criteria for the decision to use lethal force.

 

[GVF]

Again, there is NO EVIDENCE they EVER pointed guns at him...You are making this stuff up in your mind as you go along

They approached a man with loaded firearms. A foregone legal assumption is that they intended to use those guns. The two men could have chose to try and detain the guy without weapons.

 

[hog88]

Not so much your post as the whole topic. You know, like most other folks are doing?

Trying to ignore any racially charged elements in this and similar incidents is the bare bones definition of willful ignorance.

It's nothing but pure conjecture on your part that if Martin had been white Zimmerman wouldn't have followed him. It's 100% fact that if Martin would have just went home and stayed there Zimmerman wouldn't have shot him.

 

[bamawriter]

Seems to me like once they called the cops that kinda takes away their intent imo. The only way any guns being fired could be justified is if there is a physical struggle over who controls the weapon.

Once again, whatever one's intent, the law does not allow you to create a dangerous situation and then shoot your way out of it.

 

[Rickyvol77]

The fact both father and son had histories in law says they should have known they had no legal authority to detain the suspect on a public road. He wasn't on their property. He wasn't caught in commission of a crime. He was on a public road, and they were not law enforcement.

The DA read a pretty good understanding of the belief they had the right. I know you will say "well they used to work for the DA" and i get that, but it's not as clear cut as you think.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

It's nothing but pure conjecture on your part that if Martin had been white Zimmerman wouldn't have followed him. It's 100% fact that if Martin would have just went home and stayed there Zimmerman wouldn't have shot him.

And it's 100% fact that if Zimmerman had obeyed the police on the phone...

See, I can play this game too, except my what if precludes yours.

The **** outta here.

 

[Weezer]

Everything except the bolded part i can agree with. It's not an assault to merely possess firearms unless there is direct evidence that you were pointing them at someone or verbally threatened to use them. Georgia law on self-defense is pretty clear on this. It's a lot harder to argue self-defense for the suspect since he had the opportunity to run away still.

Some would argue he thought he was "trapped" but no court can take into evidence a hypothesis of what someone "may have" been feeling

It's not self defense when you created the situation to start with, especially through illegal action. By the father's own words, they are guilty IMO. If two armed men order you to stop, even if followed by "we just want to talk", and they're clearly not law enforcement.... C'mon man. Their actions were horribly irresponsible and a man died because of them.

 

[Matt2496]

Not so much your post as the whole topic. You know, like most other folks are doing?

Trying to ignore any racially charged elements in this and similar incidents is the bare bones definition of willful ignorance.

I haven't seen any direct evidence that race was involved with this. All I've read is that the 2 men saw someone peeking through the window of a house and started following him in their truck.

 

[GVF]

I have stated if there is evidence that the two guys pointed their guns at the suspect before hand or stated something along the lines of "stop or ill shoot you", i would feel there is more legal debate to be had. If the suspect had a gun, and stated he felt threatened and shot at them, then i feel his articulation of facts and what happened leads it to be much more up in the air.

The problem is there is NO evidence of actual pointing the gun or making threats towards the guy, their intent was clearly to try to identify/detain as they were stating as two different people called 911 on the incident to get police there.

If the suspect had been running away and the guy shot him, i'd say YEP 100% manslaughter easily.

The shooting happened solely because the suspect turned and ran back towards them and physically attacked the son and tried to steal his gun. This changed the entire encounter from two idiots being idiots to a true life and death situation.

Irrelevent. They had every opportunity to continue to tail the guy without confrontation, and update his location until LE arrived. If your approach a person weapon in hand, it's reasonable to assume by logic and law you intended to point that gun at the person to use force, or instill fear and intimidation. It's laughable to think they were going to point it at the tree and warn him to stop of the tree gets it. they made their decision. Accountability.

 

[Bigun]

Sorry for the stupid question but has the prosecution said what they are charging them with yet or does that only about if the GJ says it should go to trial?

 

[TheDeeble]

They approached a man with loaded firearms. A foregone legal assumption is that they intended to use those guns.

They had opportunity to do so before the physical altercation.

If they intended to shoot him, why wouldn't they do it in a much less risky scenario? If there is intent to shoot someone, they wouldn't wait till the guy is trying to wrestle the gun away.

The two men could have chose to try and detain the guy without weapons.

I agree. Or they could have just followed.

 

[hog88]

And it's 100% fact that if Zimmerman had obeyed the police on the phone...

See, I can play this game too, except my what if precludes yours.

The **** outta here.

I agree but what does that have to do with anything? The only person that can prevent you from doing dumb **** is you and circling around to attack someone following you is being a dumb ****.

 

[Rickyvol77]

And it's 100% fact that if Zimmerman had obeyed the police on the phone...

See, I can play this game too, except my what if precludes yours.

The **** outta here.

He was walking back to his car, he wasn't even following Martin when Martin attacked him...My kids can follow these conceptual discussions better

 

[DinkinFlicka]

I haven't seen any direct evidence that race was involved with this. All I've read is that the 2 men saw someone peeking through the window of a house and started following him.

It certainly takes a small leap of assumption since telepathy isn't a thing, but the resounding volume of discussion about race related to this incident speaks for itself.

 

[Weezer]

Well they don't have to "claim" Amhad did the attacking because he 100% clear as day did on that video. We both agree that a Grand Jury to mull the facts is the best scenario.
I truly don't believe the evidence supports that the two men set out to shoot and kill him, i do believe they thought he would stop and they would detain him till police arrived.

I think Ahmad's family suing them in civil court for money is the way to go rather than criminal charges (at least murder charges instead of reckless endangerment, false imprisonment type charges)

How many people have advocated murder charges? None that I've seen. At the very least, the majority has clearly stated manslaughter. Yet you continue to feel the need to defend these two men who acted with no legal authority.

 

[TheDeeble]

Once again, whatever one's intent, the law does not allow you to create a dangerous situation and then shoot your way out of it.

See earlier response. I'm not trying to make a statement of guilt or innocence with that post. I was replying to dink suggesting he was going to be shot whether or not he attempted to take the gun away from the guy in the truck.

If they intended to shoot him they wouldn't have called the cops. I can imagine how that conversation would go if there had been no physical altercation.

Cops: So you called us.
Guy: yep.
Cops: So why'd you shoot him before we got here?
Guy: ................

 

[Chris4Vols22]

@Rickyvol77 I gotta say that the points you're trying to make entirely ride on the assumption that the runner just up and decided to attack the gunman without provocation. The evidence we have now, as weak as it is, just doesn't support that assumption.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

He was walking back to his car, he wasn't even following Martin when Martin attacked him...My kids can follow these conceptual discussions better

You are at it again with your revisionist ********. He was inside his car, on the phone with police, and told not to follow him. It must be exhausting and morally corrosive to just sit here and spew so much false information to rationalize your warped view.

You probably lie to your litter too so it's no surprise they follow along more easily.

 

[Vol737]

Two armed men chase down and confront an unarmed man. The unarmed man is shot dead and somehow it's his fault?

I think the son will AT LEAST get a manslaughter charge (involuntary?) out of it. I say that because the guy jogging appears to have charged the son holding the shotgun as he came around the front of the truck. I guess it could go to second degree murder due to the fact this father and son reportedly had driven past the victim and then waited on him. That doesn't look good. These guys are idiots for not calling the police to check it out if they felt so strongly about it and then keep a safe distance. Completely avoidable. It comes down to judgement. They judged poorly IMO.

 

[bamawriter]

And it's 100% fact that if Zimmerman had obeyed the police on the phone...

See, I can play this game too, except my what if precludes yours.

The **** outta here.

The evidence was pretty clear that Zimmerman was on his way back to his vehicle when Martin confronted him. When the 911 dispatcher told him "we don't need you to [follow the suspect]", Zimmerman's responded "Okay."

 

[Hunerwadel]

.

 

[bamawriter]

See earlier response. I'm not trying to make a statement of guilt or innocence with that post. I was replying to dink suggesting he was going to be shot whether or not he attempted to take the gun away from the guy in the truck.

If they intended to shoot him they wouldn't have called the cops. I can imagine how that conversation would go if there had been no physical altercation.

Cops: So you called us.
Guy: yep.
Cops: So why'd you shoot him before we got here?
Guy: ................

I agree with that. I simply disagree with the notion that guilt or innocence hinges on which party initiated the physical confrontation.