On the subject of attacking an armed man and getting shot

A man was shot when he attacked another man with a gun. How responsible should the man who shot him be, legally, ethically, morally?

We can all probably agree that attacking a person with a gun is not a good idea most of the time. Was this one of those times?

The man shot was Ahmaud Arbery https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIJkGV5wJz4

If the two white men in the video where undercover or otherwise active duty police officers, would or should the possible ramifications be different? Why or why not?

The context is important: These armed men were *pursuing *Arbery; they were the aggressors. It’s not as if Arbery walked up to a gun owner and began trying to disarm him of his gun for no reason.

At first blush, this looks to me like a lynching where the victim briefly resisted. What were these two mopes planning to do? Citizen’s arrest? Neither of them had any official authority. If they suspected Arbery of being a burglar and had taken pictures of him and gotten a detailed description to pass onto police later without actually confronting him, I don’t think there’d have been a problem, beyond the creepiness, stalking and profiling aspects.

How could they be the aggressors when he was clearly attacking them by being black? Also, with a name like “Ahmaud” he’s suspiciously muslim.

You should be commending these patriots for their heroic national service! Now, enough about our totally justified, saintlike comrades - let us return to serious debate over just how deserving this obviously black, probably muslim male was of extrajudicial execution for the crime of existing.

Not only that, but he was jogging through their white neighborhood! The nerve. If he wanted to be able to jog through white neighborhoods, he should have been born white. It’s obvious.

Hey, OP, why did that guy have a gun out when all Arbery was doing was going for a run? If you were going jogging and someone started following you in their truck and then pulled out a gun, what would you do? Assume the position?

ETA: If they were undercover police officers and they never identified themselves as police before pulling out their guns, wrestling with the guy, and then shooting him? No change in my mind. In reality, they would walk even freer than these guys are going to walk after murdering Arbery.

By what basis do you assert this? According to the video and everything else I’ve seen, the confrontation was started by the killers, who accosted an unarmed man before they murdered him.

Are we “just asking questions” here?

No, they should not be different.

If you chase someone down the street pointing guns at them, you’re attacking them, and the person being chased has a right to defend himself. Arbery was perfectly correct to defend himself; he quite reasonably felt his life was in danger.

I don’t trust a jury to necessarily render a guilty verdict in this case. A lot of jurors will be sympathetic to the argument that a white man got his shit stolen, wanted to find the perpetrator, thought this big scary King Kong jogging through the neighborhood might be the perp, and simply did what any rugged, bootstrapping, freedom-loving white male cowboy woulda done and confronted this beast with the only tools he had to defend himself: his guns.

A lot of people don’t necessarily associate guns with racism, but the gun is as powerful and real a symbol of white supremacy and black oppression in this country as any I can think of. Just do a Wikipedia search of the Black Codes and the Cruikshank court case.

The “citizen’s arrest” thing basically serves to make every white man a de facto police officer. In a certain mindset, Arbery should have reacted like you would if the police pulled up and cut you off: with immediate deference to their authority. And to people more concerned with preserving white supremacy than anything, they will want to free these assholes for that and that alone. Even if they privately think these guys went overboard, they will defend them because the principal, that black men aren’t allowed to defend themselves, cannot be violated.

How about reframing the o.p. in a less implicitly dishonest fashion:*A man who was jogging and had committed no crime was shot when another man with a gun chased him down in a truck and confronted him. How responsible should the man who shot him be, legally, ethically, morally?

We can all probably agree that chasing down an unarmed man who committed no crime with a gun is not a good idea most of the time. Was this one of those times?

The man shot was Ahmaud Arbery https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIJkGV5wJz4

If the two white men in the video where undercover or otherwise active duty police officers, would or should the possible ramifications be different? Why or why not?*

Stranger

Those 2 redneck jerks are going to prison.
Prison is hard on former law enforcement persons. And boy, that makes me happy.

Good riddance to both of them.

It has not yet been noted in this thread that the jogger clearly tried to avoid confrontation. He switched direction to run around the passenger side of the truck over someone’s lawn when he saw a gunman get out of the vehicle on the driver’s side to block his path. The gunman then ran around the front of the truck to confront the jogger. At that point, the jogger had no good options remaining.

You, and anyone else that minimizes this, is an awful human being.

Ahmaud Arbery did exactly 0 things wrong in that video. The men that hunted him down and murdered him should get the maximum penalty under the law and the DA that declined prosecution in the first place should lose their job, at a minimum.

As others have pointed out, the OP is not an accurate description of what happened.

A person who attacks an armed person has some responsibility for the incident. A person who defends himself from an attack by an armed person does not. Ahmaud Arbery was acting in self-defense.

Perhaps you can explain how Arbery, who did not instigate this conflict, who was chased down by two armed men in a vehicle while jogging, and who by all accounts had not only been responsible for the hypothetical break-ins that are not actually recorded in any law enforcement records but had no history of violent or criminal behavior, is primarily responsible this confrontation or could have taken some action to avoid it.

It is hard to image a more clear case of wholly unjustified murder and yet the woodwork is crawling with people “just asking questions” and trying to imagine some scenario where an unarmed jogger is somehow responsible for two armed civilians attempt to detain him and then murder him with no reasonable justification whatsoever.

Stranger

I’m thinking more a pit rant or a troll.

To the Pit. Have at it.

OK, Zimmerman

Alright! It’s still early here but I’m cracking a Jacaranda, popping some popcorn, and putting my feet up. Will you not entertain me?

Stranger

I thought a Jacaranda was a moderately large deciduous tree with purple blossoms.

Did someone name a beer after it?