The murder of Ahmaud Arbery

#1,026
#1,026
bamawriter said:
Citizen's arrests exist for a reason. But they are also tightly defined for a reason. There is no way that what these yahoos had grounds for a citizen's arrest.
Click to expand...
GVF said:
Attempting citizen arrests and detainment is technically legal in most states. I agree with your statement when it comes to a citizen doing so with weapons. The prudent thing for a citizen in 99% of the scenarios is to just follow the perp from a safe distance and update LE on the location.
Click to expand...


The problem becomes that we have three people who knew the details of what happened and one of them is dead. The fact that they took it upon themselves to try to detain the guy, where it got to the point that they are saying they had to use deadly force, makes you question not just their judgment, but their motives.

I am not going to guess at that, because a guess is what would be. But I can certainly understand why, based on that, a lot of people think it reflects very questionable motives.
 
#1,030
#1,030
If I were a betting man, I would bet that at 11 seconds in on that video the image will be able to be enhanced and you will see both men pointing guns at the victim. Felony battery in Ga. Also, makes self defense an untenable argument.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Weezer
#1,033
#1,033
Vol8188 said:
I have a right to protect my life, liberty, and property. You don’t have to like it, but it doesn’t change anything.
Click to expand...

That you have that right doesn't mean you should value a cup of coffee over another's life, even if that other is a thieving a**hole.
 
#1,034
#1,034
Vol8188 said:
I have a right to protect my life, liberty, and property. You don’t have to like it, but it doesn’t change anything.
Click to expand...

Cool. Nobody said you don't have a right to protect your property. I'm just saying you're sub human if you'd kill over $5. I hope you don't mean it
 
#1,035
#1,035
TheDeeble said:
Might have been. I think someone said earlier they said they believed he was armed himself.


Agreed.
Click to expand...
If he were armed himself, the wouldn't he most likely have drawn his own firearm in response to being confronted by two armed men? I think the two men were hoping he was armed because it would have made a better case for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClearwaterVol
#1,036
#1,036
n_huffhines said:
Cool. Nobody said you don't have a right to protect your property. I'm just saying you're sub human if you'd kill over $5. I hope you don't mean it
Click to expand...

Depends on the circumstances. If someone came over and had coffee with me and just never returned the mug, I’m not claiming I would dedicate my life to hunting them down.

But if you broke into my vehicle or home like in this story and stole something out of my vehicle or home (a gun in this story), I would have no problem taking that persons life if I knew beyond a doubt I had the right person. Even more so if I caught them in the act
 
#1,038
#1,038
bamawriter said:
That you have that right doesn't mean you should value a cup of coffee over another's life, even if that other is a thieving a**hole.
Click to expand...

The “you value x more than another persons life” is a weak argument. If you kill a burglar it’s not because you value your door more than their life. If you kill someone trying to harm your dog, it doesn’t mean you value canine life above dog life.

If you kill ten people in self defense it doesn’t mean you believe yourself to be of more importance to society than the other 10. It means you have a right to defend yourself and you didn’t want to die.

I have the same right to defend my property.
 
#1,039
#1,039
Vol8188 said:
Depends on the circumstances. If someone came over and had coffee with me and just never returned the mug, I’m not claiming I would dedicate my life to hunting them down.

But if you broke into my vehicle or home like in this story and stole something out of my vehicle or home (a gun in this story), I would have no problem taking that persons life if I knew beyond a doubt I had the right person. Even more so if I caught them in the act
Click to expand...

Unless you catch them in the act, you don't really have the right to kill them. You have the right to protect your life or property from being threatened. You don't have the right to assault someone in order to take your property back at some later time.
 
#1,040
#1,040
bamawriter said:
If you're referring to Zimmerman, I'm going to disagree. Following at a distance in order to give the cops a location of the suspect is totally fine. And there is available evidence that Zimmerman stopped actively following Martin after that instruction from the dispatcher. Martin was in the wind, and the fatal confrontation would not have happened had he not made the choice to go back after Zimmerman. It's hard to make a case that Martin was defending himself.

I would feel the exact same way in the Arbery case if the assailants had simply followed from a distance. But, unlike in the Martin-Zimmerman situation, Arbery's killers kept pursuing and attempted to detain Arbery. Even if Arbery initiated contact, it seems pretty obvious that he did so in self defense after his attempts to flee were thwarted.
Click to expand...
Like Dink, I've heard he was told not to follow before leaving his car. If that's not the case, then that changes things. But if he got out of his car to follow after being told not to, then I stick by involuntary manslaughter.

Talking about Zimmerman.
 
#1,042
#1,042
bamawriter said:
Unless you catch them in the act, you don't really have the right to kill them. You have the right to protect your life or property from being threatened. You don't have the right to assault someone in order to take your property back at some later time.
Click to expand...

Yes you do.
 
#1,044
#1,044
Weezer said:
Like Dink, I've heard he was told not to follow before leaving his car. If that's not the case, then that changes things. But if he got out of his car to follow after being told not to, then I stick by involuntary manslaughter.
Click to expand...

Like I told Dink, Zimmerman was out of his car and following on foot when the dispatcher gives that instruction. In fact, the dispatcher gave the instruction because he could hear that Zimmerman had left his car.
 
#1,046
#1,046
ClearwaterVol said:
If I were a betting man, I would bet that at 11 seconds in on that video the image will be able to be enhanced and you will see both men pointing guns at the victim. Felony battery in Ga. Also, makes self defense an untenable argument.

Click to expand...

Defense attorneys are pieces of crap. A really good defense attorney will focus on Arbery punching and wrestling the gun with the guy before he gets shot. Not saying I believe that, just likely what they will focus on. Depending on how much money the defendants have and who agrees to take the case, they can get a piece of trash attorney like Johnny Cochran or the guy that defended the LAPD officers that wailed on Rodney King and make a case...especially if the prosecution is stupid and overcharges the defendants.
 
#1,049
#1,049
DinkinFlicka said:
I can concede the phone call didn't end inside the car.

There's still that 4 minutes between "we don't need you to do that" and the actual fight that is shrouded by lack of witnesses and phone call times. It's highly doubtful Zimm B lined for his car as soon as he was told that pursuit wasn't necessary.

Ergo, he doesn't go sniffing for trouble, someone doesn't die. Same with these two Rickies and Arbery.
Click to expand...
There was a witness to the fight. and all physical and forensic evidence backed Zimmerman's account of the story. Again you are making assumptions (it's highly doubtful), instead of using the evidence and actual law to make your point.
 
#1,050
#1,050
bamawriter said:
No you don't. OJ went to prison for violently taking back property that was undisputed to be his.
Click to expand...

You’re confusing legality and rights. You have that right. The state may not recognize it, but that doesn’t negate it. The state didn’t recognize the rights of Jews to live during the Holocaust. It did not change the fact that they had that right
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top