Well, that’s the problem here.
It’s not that you are looking at the facts, it is that you are making assertions and assumptions that are not based on the facts.
Let’s look at precedent—the George Zimmerman case. Zimmerman was wrong for following Trevon Martin around, but it was decided in a jury trial that once Trevon Martin was sitting on top of Zimmerman beating his head against the pavement, Zimmerman had the right to defend himself against that. Look at the current Kyle Rittenhouse trial—it isn’t over yet but there is a very strong chance that he is going to walk, because even though he shouldn’t have been there with a gun there is still the possibility that the jury will see that he was acting out of a legitimate immediate fear for his life. There is no law that says that you have to give in and let someone kill you just because you shouldn’t have brought a gun. If I had to guess at this point, I’d say that both the Rittenhouse and Arbery cases will end with something short of conviction on the highest murder charges.
And so are you (a group you). You are making assertions and assumptions that these were raging rasicts eager to kill themselves a n*****, any n*****.
That would be one more assertion on your part that is not based on factual information.
Zimmerman got off because the only survivor of the incident told a story that got him off, had we video of the incident, it very well could have gone differently.
It’s likely that he will get off as well, as he is the survivor that gets to tell his story.
If you threaten someone with a gun, you don’t get to use self defense as an excuse for using it when the person that you are threatening attempts to defend themself from your lethal threats.
Judge Walmsley has previously denied the defense motion to introduce evidence of Arbery’s prior dealings with law enforcement as irrelevant.
The person who was DA at the time, Jackie Johnson, has been indicted by a grand jury for violating her oath of office by refusing to charge the defendants, by showing favoritism to Greg McDaniels, and by referring the case to someone she knew wouldn’t charge it either.
From the wiki page of the shooting:
On June 4, additional evidence was presented by the prosecutor to support the murder charges, including a statement to the GBI by William Bryan that Travis McMichael said “fucking nigger” as Arbery lay dying.
These are the shitstains that you’re defending for some reason.
Modnote: To all, the recent posts have been much too much in the attacking the poster vein instead of attacking the post. Please remember, this thread is in GD.
This is a really easy one to refute, because we don’t even need to look at the alternate universe where he wasn’t serially trespassing. That would be, in fact, this universe. He was only on the property once, and that one time wasn’t trespassing. He wasn’t serially trespassing, and he was shot anyway.
Thank you for responding.
.
.
.
.
Neither of those would be precedent-setting in this case. However, the two are good comparisons.
George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin in a public location. [He really, really should not have done that, but that’s not necessarily legally relevant.] However, it is not definitively known which one of the two initiated violence. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence that Zimmerman brandished his weapon or otherwise threatened Martin first. We also can’t confirm who initiated the confrontation, which makes it even more difficult. Although Zimmerman’s own version of events displays an incredible lack of judgment, it is consistent with the evidence. This does not mean it is true, or the whole truth, just that it is isn’t necessarily easily refuted.
I think in this case that a good prosecution might have made a difference, and that Zimmerman slid by on a very, very thin edge of the law. From a purely from a legal perspective the case was decided correctly.
In the Rittenhouse case, we again see that the facts indicate that the suspect was in severe want of judgment, but also that they did not necessary initiate violence. Other evidence in this situation also broadly matches the accused individual’s version of events. Even one of the prosecution’s witnesses pretty much flat out admitted the defendant’s story, which is not really good for them. Like Zimmerman, I can believe that Rittenhouse showed absurdly bad judgment in inserting himself into a dangerous situation but also that his actions were not legally murder. I will acknowledge that part of my reasoning is that Rittenhouse was legally a child at the time of the (alleged) crimes and that his actions, or really fantasies, were fed by adults around him.
All that being said, the facts of the case don’t line up with a legitimate self-defence claim in the case of Ahmaud Arbery.
Ahmaud was very definitely “minding his own business”. There doesn’t appear to be any evidence that he committed any crime. I know that you have claimed he was, but I am stating this as a fact: Arbery was not under any reasonable suspicion at the time of the events. He wasn’t confronting the persons of the McMichaels or Bryan, and probably did not know they were present. Far from initiating violence, he instead first tried to avoid them and fled. According to Bryan’s own testimony to the police, Arbery ran until he was out of breath and probably couldn’t run any more, and Bryan likely struck Arbery with a car.
Arbery at this point may have no non-violent options, period. He has been chased down and assaulted by three unknown gunmen, brandishing weapons. His situation is critical, which is something you don’t seem to appreciate. This is a desperate, life or death situation for him. He cannot flee because they have vehicles, and he could be hurt. These men (well, I believe Gregory McMichaels) demanded that Arbery stop but (A) they had not the slightest authority to do so and (B) that would have been insane because their actions were already far beyond what’s acceptable. They presented an evident threat to his life, health, and safety. Police were not far away, but the three suspect also didn’t wait for them.
Now, note that at each step it was the three suspects that initiated and escalated the situation, including violence. At a bare minimum, they deliberately, knowingly chose to trap Arbery. No reasonable person would have chosen to do this. We also then have only their word that Arbery rushed for the gun; this might be true, but (A) opinions are not sure if the gunshot occurred before the scuffle, and (B) they put Arbery in that position in the first place.
The issue here isn’t that some convenient precedent says they are innocent. It’s that the facts are horribly against them. In the case of Zimmerman, the situation was ambiguous. In the case of Rittenhouse, well the verdict isn’t clear but I lean towards saying he is innocent of the specific charges against him. Both may have moral culpability. Maybe the defence has a lot of evidence that hasn’t been examined in detail, but this case seems to be quite thoroughly analyzed so far. The three suspects appear to have almost no concept of how their actions would be viewed by others.
I’d say since the DA almost let them completely off the hook, they had a very good concept of how their actions would be viewed by at least particular others.
The fundamental problem with all these cases is, there are a whole lot of Americans who don’t think that being aggressively confronted by a person with a gun is a legitimate reason to fear for your life. “Having a gun is perfectly normal! There’s no reason to think there was any danger!”
In pretty much the whole rest of the world, we all know that’s bullshit. But at this point, I don’t think we’ll ever convince this segment of the American population that they’re wrong.
But they also think “standing your ground” and using a gun to defend yourself in a situation where the threat was ambiguous or where you had plenty of other non-lethal options is also perfectly reasonable.
If I have a gun, then the mere existence of a person without a gun is a dire threat, because they might take my gun.
If I don’t have a gun, then a person with a gun can’t possibly be a threat, because they won’t steal my nonexistant gun because they already have one.
Yeah, this is the bit I don’t get.
Darren: would Arbery, in your opinion, have been justified in shooting all three of his assailants?
One thing I wanted to follow-up with:
I can’t say whether the three suspects will be found guilty before a court of law. Although I don’t believe this situation is murky or unclear, juries are hard to predict in high-profile cases. Maybe with good legal representation the defendants could get one juror on their side. In addition, lest this be confused later: a Self-Defence claim is an Affirmative Defence but it doesn’t change the basic element of the trial. The Prosecution does have to prove the issue beyond a reasonable doubt. My completely-vague idiot civilian understanding is that this is a dangerous Defence to raise because it it basically requires you (the abstract “you”, not a specific poster) to admit to more or less all the prosecution’s facts, which is not something you want. Here they had no choice; there’s no alternative.
[I think that many/most states used to require that defendants who raised a Seld Defence claim prove their case instead as part of the Affirmative Defence, but either this idea is wrong or they changed it.]
That said, here they are (quite properly) being charged with Felony Murder which may make it harder on them. That is, an unlawful death occurred during and flowing from the commission of a felony, and there are held culpable for the acts. That is, by chasing down and boxing in Arbery, they committed a felony offence; because Arbery died as a result of these actions or in an event without which it would not have occurred, they are being charged with murder also. I’m not really sure how a self-defence claim can ever work under the circumstances, but maybe that was their last hope.
Either way they also face Federal charges, due to come for trial next Spring. For the three suspects this is Really Bad. Federal prosecutors don’t like to bring charges unless they believe very strongly they can win, and they as a result they have a very high success rate at trial.
Which I find rather odd. If this had happened in 1995, the pro-gun crowd would use this as an example of why Arbery should have been permitted to have a concealed carry license . I’ve never shied away from my pro-2nd Amendment stance here, but in this particular case my sympathies lie with Arbery. Many years ago I found myself in a similar situation while walking where three individuals got out of their car and assaulted me. Thankfully I was younger and in much better physical shape (I was on the wrestling team), and after a few minutes they got tired, stopped fighting, and I was able to walk away. But I was scared and if I had access to a rock I wouldn’t have hesitated to brain one of them with it. Looking at it from Arbery’s point of view, I think his actions were perfectly reasonable whereas his attackers’ were not.
That’s the weird thing about the self-defence claim. If they say that it was reasonable for them to defend themselves because Arbery might have got their gun, then they’re implicitly saying it was reasonable for Arbery to try to take their gun, in his own self-defence.
No, because they were a bunch of good old boys who obviously didn’t want to hurt anyone and he was obviously a violent thug, a fact he should have understood about himself.
I believe in the principle of being able to claim self-defense in cases where someone ended up dead, but I also think, to make that claim, there must be a “clean hands” standard. That is, you must not have been in any way responsible for initiating the encounter in which you felt it became necessary to defend yourself.
It offends my sensibilities that guys like these ones, Zimmerman and that other punk kid on trial right now can go out of their way to arm themselves, go out of their way to find (or create) a volatile situation, and then, when the other party starts to fight back, suddenly go, “Oh! Woe is me! There’s simply no way I could have known that this course of action could have resulted in violence! Whatever shall I do?!?”
In this case, it’s clear based on the admitted evidence that Arbery was not the one who initiated the encounter, and in fact, he did all he could to avoid the encounter. He only acted in self-defense when all his other options had run out. If these yahoos hadn’t decided to go all Dirty Harry that day, Arbery would have never have been in danger, and neither would they.