# On the subject of attacking an armed man and getting shot **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 9, 2020, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460 "2020-05-09T08:18:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2020, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/241 "2020-05-18T17:49:24Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > The “reasonableness” I have been discussing refers only to what a typical person would expect from Arbery once Arbery went for the gun. The word reasonable is loaded in this circumstance because it’s how the law identifies people who are not acting as criminals. Whatever intent you had in discussing his emotional state gets lost by using the word reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2020, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/242 "2020-05-18T17:50:06Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > Shit-fer-brains, can you not keep two posts of mine in your thought process at the same time? Here, I’ll put them together for you: > > When Arbery went for McMichael’s gun, any reasonable person in McMichael’s circumstance would fear for his life. Do you agree with this? If so, then when McMichael shot Arbery, it was’t simple murder. > > HOWEVER: > > In the course of first committing felony assault with a deadly weapon (i.e. by brandishing a shotgun toward Arbery), McMichael created the circumstances in which Arbery felt compelled to defend himself by attempting to take control of the gun. The homicide of Arbery, even though committed in self defense by McMichael, was a direct result of McMichael’s felonious AWADW on Arbery, and therefore constitutes felony murder. > > Do you agree with this, or do you think a different legal theory is applicable? Lemme get this straight - McMichael was defending himself against someone who was defending himself against McMichael. You can’t start a fight then claim self-defense. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2020, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/243 "2020-05-18T17:52:16Z")
> [@Chingon](#): > > I can only assume that McMichael’s attorney’s main focus will be getting people like Darren Garrison, Machine Elf, Ultra Vires, and Shodan on the jury. I think that’s pretty unfair to **Machine Elf** , who I believe is just trying to (over)explain his language choices. Pretty clear to me the poster is not trying to justify or excuse the murder. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2020, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/244 "2020-05-18T17:55:57Z")
The courts should be able to come up with unique punishments. Hows about a shootout between the McMichaels and George Zimmerman? ---
**Author:** ![Folacin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folacin/32/3195_2.png) [@Folacin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folacin)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2020, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/245 "2020-05-18T18:12:15Z")
> [@Chisquirrel](#): > > Lemme get this straight - McMichael was defending himself against someone who was defending himself against McMichael. > > You can’t start a fight then claim self-defense. As my then first-grader explained to me once (I explained to him that he was wrong): > [@First Grade Logic](#): > > It’s OK to hit someone if they hit you back. And I don’t know that it was entirely reasonable for for McMichael’s to have feared for his life when Aubrey attempted to grab his shotgun. He may well have just been attempting to disarm him. Now, elder McMichael may well have thought it necessary to shoot him because it was beginning to look like it might be becoming a somewhat fairer fight if people on both sides were armed. Can’t chance that. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2020, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/246 "2020-05-18T19:29:07Z")
> [@Chisquirrel](#): > > You can’t start a fight then claim self-defense. Yep, I said pretty much the exact same thing: > [@Machine Elf](#): > > The “reasonableness” I have been discussing refers only to what a typical person would expect from Arbery once Arbery went for the gun. That is, a reasonable person in McMichael’s circumstance, after Arbery has put hands on the gun, would fear for his own life. > > This does not in any way excuse McMichael from killing Arbery. it was not in any way a justifiable homicide, since McMichael started the whole shit show. > [@Cheesesteak](#): > > The word reasonable is loaded in this circumstance because it’s how the law identifies people who are not acting as criminals. Whatever intent you had in discussing his emotional state gets lost by using the word reasonable. Apparently. my point is that I don’t believe McMichael went into this whole situation with the intent of killing someone. He is nonetheless responsible for creating the circumstances in which he felt he had to kill Arbery to keep Arbery from killing him - which in turn makes him responsible for Arbery’s death. > [@Northern Piper](#): > > It does not appear that the Georgia law would allow self-defence in this case. According to Findlaw: Georgia Self-Defense Laws: > > > [@Findlaw](#): > > > > When the Use of Deadly Force is Not Justified > > > > If you’re the initial aggressor I never claimed that McMichael was _justified_ in shooting Arbery. I only claimed it was reasonable for McMichael to fear for his life. This is the distinction that I think is maybe being lost here. > [@Northern Piper](#): > > Further, the Georgia stand-your-ground law would appear to be on the jogger’s side: > > > [@](#): > > > > Justifiable Use of Force > > > > - You can use force when you reasonably believe that the force is necessary in order to protect yourself or a third party against another person’s imminent use of unlawful force. > > > > \*The scope of the force that you can use depends on whether you reasonably believe that the type of force is necessary to defend yourself or a third party. > > > > \*You may use deadly force only if you reasonably believe that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to you, or to another, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. > > Since the McMichaels were the initial aggressors, threatneing Arbery with deadly force, his response appears to have been within the law, and they cannot cite self-defence in response to his attempt to defend himself from them. It may be that I’m tripping on my own dick because I’m not an actual lawyer. Whether this was a felony-murder or just a simple murder can be left up to formally schooled legal minds, but just so we’re clear: **I think McMichael is morally and legally responsible for Arbery’s death and should go to prison for a very long time.** ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2020, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/247 "2020-05-18T20:10:43Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > Apparently. my point is that I don’t believe McMichael went into this whole situation with the intent of killing someone. He is nonetheless responsible for creating the circumstances in which he felt he had to kill Arbery to keep Arbery from killing him - which in turn makes him responsible for Arbery’s death. And a drunk driver doesn’t get behind the wheel sloshed with the intent of killing a bus full of orphaned nuns. > [@](#): > > I never claimed that McMichael was _justified_ in shooting Arbery. I only claimed it was reasonable for McMichael to fear for his life. This is the distinction that I think is maybe being lost here. It is not a distinction that should make any legal or ethical difference. I get that he was afraid that he was going to end up on the wrong end of his own gun, but that is not a reasonable fear, as it arises from unreasonable circumstances of his own making. I mean, I’ll bet that when he started losing control over the weapon that he brought with him, he probably panicked and was terrified, but that still does not mean that it was reasonable or justified for him to act in fear of his life. > [@](#): > > It may be that I’m tripping on my own dick because I’m not an actual lawyer. Whether this was a felony-murder or just a simple murder can be left up to formally schooled legal minds, but just so we’re clear: **I think McMichael is morally and legally responsible for Arbery’s death and should go to prison for a very long time.** Agreed. And I get what you are saying, but that there are those who make the same arguments as you do, but do not think that the McMchaels should be held legally accountable, means that your arguments are in fact ammo for the side that would see them exonerated and treated as heroes. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2020, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/248 "2020-05-18T20:38:59Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > I never claimed that McMichael was _justified_ in shooting Arbery. I only claimed it was reasonable for McMichael to fear for his life. This is the distinction that I think is maybe being lost here. I think the issue here may be that the use of the word “reasonable” is short hand for the reasonable person doctrine. In most uses, being the instigator of a felony would exclude you from being considered a reasonable person, and therefore all of your responses would be excluded. A reasonable person would not have pursued Arbery in this situation therefore nothing done afterwards could be considered under the reasonable person doctrine. The problem is not what McMichael was feeling, it’s that he’s incapable of being considered a reasonable man. If you had simply asked if it was likely that McMichael feared for his life I don’t think people would object. But the term “reasonable” has broader connotations in the legal system and introducing it opens a can of worms. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2020, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/249 "2020-05-18T20:49:14Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > my point is that I don’t believe McMichael went into this whole situation with the intent of killing someone. He is nonetheless responsible for creating the circumstances in which he felt he had to kill Arbery to keep Arbery from killing him - which in turn makes him responsible for Arbery’s death. Sure, that may not have been his intention, but if “he felt he had to kill Arbery” then he is forming an intention to kill, even if he didn’t have that intent originally, and even if it is just seconds before the gun goes off. That intent to kill could potentially support a murder conviction (depending on the laws of Georgia, about which I know nothing; I’m just relying on general common law principles) > [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > I never claimed that McMichael was _justified_ in shooting Arbery. I only claimed it was reasonable for McMichael to fear for his life. This is the distinction that I think is maybe being lost here. I think the point in response (again, depending on Georgia law) is that having a reasonable fear for your life is not sufficient to mount a defence of self-defence -\* if you created the situation in the first place.\* After all, a crook in a shoot-out with the cops, after he’s robbed a store, definitely has a reasonable fear for his life - but that doesn’t mean he’s now permitted to kill the cops who are trying to arrest him. “Reasonable fear for your life” is one component for self-defence; but if self-defence isn’t available under Georgia law, because you yourself were the initial aggressor, having a reasonable fear for your life is irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![HelenGawn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a88e4f/32.png) [@HelenGawn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HelenGawn)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2020, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/250 "2020-05-19T00:45:56Z")
Everyone here is wildly misreading **MachineElf** ’s posts even when he answers that he’s agreeing with them. The defense will no doubt assert that McMichael acted in self-defense because he feared for his life. A jury may find this reasonable. The prosecution has a counter to that based on statute: that it _doesn’t matter_ because he committed an illegal act by confronting Arbery with a gun. [He even brought the cites,](https://statelaws.findlaw.com/georgia-law/georgia-self-defense-laws.html) for fuck’s sake. Quit arguing with your allies. ---
**Author:** ![Chingon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chingon/32/17645_2.png) [@Chingon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chingon)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2020, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/251 "2020-05-19T00:52:29Z")
#NotMyAlly ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2020, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/252 "2020-05-19T00:55:10Z")
And why did he fear for his life? Let me guess. Black people scare him to death. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2020, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/253 "2020-05-19T01:18:41Z")
> [@HelenGawn](#): > > Everyone here is wildly misreading **MachineElf** ’s posts even when he answers that he’s agreeing with them. Kinda nuts, innit? I’m out. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2020, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/254 "2020-05-19T02:48:35Z")
> [@Chingon](#): > > #NotMyAlly Damn I’m tired of shit like this. Fuck you blind motherfucker. #FuckYouBlindMotherFuckers ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2020, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/255 "2020-05-19T03:04:42Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > If you were threatening someone with a gun, and that person tried to take the gun from you, wouldn’t you reasonably fear for your life? Person A’s unreasonable decision to confront Person B with a gun reasonably compelled Person B to try to take it from Person A. And since Person A is still holding the gun, Person A can’t claim to be any more fearful than Person B, who was confronted and, out of fear, tried but failed to take the gun away from Person A, who unreasonably initiated the entire sequence of events to begin with. Person A is still unreasonable and armed, and Person B is still reasonably fearful and unarmed. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2020, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/256 "2020-05-19T04:06:00Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > my point is that I don’t believe McMichael went into this whole situation with the intent of killing someone. > > I only claimed it was reasonable for McMichael to fear for his life. This is the distinction that I think is maybe being lost here. > > /b] If the intent was to intimidate, stalk, kidnap, threaten with a deadly weapon, how is that better? You’re going around pushing people to the edge and daring them to make your day. If the guy is chasing black people around with guns it seems his state of mind is that he is under threat from black people, whatever time of day you get him. You don’t seem to think anything evil happened until the gun (unfortunately) went off. ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2020, 10:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/257 "2020-05-19T10:10:55Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > I think the same thing is true of “stand your ground” laws; they can be used by racists to commit murder and get away with it. That’s what stand your ground laws are for, so that whites in the south can shoot dark skinned people whenever they get scared. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2020, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/258 "2020-05-19T12:49:03Z")
[https://www.wsj.com/articles/ahmaud-arbery-shooting-spurs-calls-to-disband-police-force-11589630401](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ahmaud-arbery-shooting-spurs-calls-to-disband-police-force-11589630401) Looks like the local police department has a solid history: > [@](#): > > In 2018, the department lost its certifications with the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police and the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement—both of which are voluntary programs that provide standards around police training and professional development. > > Butch Ayers, a spokesman for the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police, said the Glynn County Police Department “fell out of compliance” with several of the group’s standards, including documentation of training and required audits of the evidence room. > > […] > In 2017, Glynn County police supervisors learned that an officer in a narcotics unit had an improper relationship with a confidential informant, but failed to investigate and covered it up, according to a report by the grand jury. At least one supervisor refused to be interviewed by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and urged others not to cooperate, the report said. > > “There is an ongoing culture of coverup, failure to supervise, abuse of power and lack of accountability within the administration of the Glynn County Police Department,” the jurors wrote. > > The allegations of wrongdoing led to the February indictment of Chief Powell and three other officers. Chief Powell was placed on administrative leave with pay and an interim chief was named. Chief Powell’s attorney, Mitchell Shook, said: “We look forward to the opportunity to have our day in court to address the illegality of the indictment and the manner in which it was obtained.” The state senator for the district where Arbery was killed had previously filed a bill to allow voters to abolish the department. ---
**Author:** ![Isosleepy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/isosleepy/32/479_2.png) [@Isosleepy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isosleepy)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2020, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/259 "2020-05-19T14:12:24Z")
When you wake up in the middle of the night with a guy standing over you in your bedroom, you are reasonably in fear of your life. Even if that guy is the one you had kidnapped and tied up in the basement, who got loose. If you shoot the guy in that case, though, regardless of the reasonableness of your fear, it isn’t self defense. It is murder. Just because the fear is or might be reasonable doesn’t matter if the situation is of your own making while you are committing a crime. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2020, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/260 "2020-05-19T14:29:41Z")
And even as bad as this police department was, this guy was still too bad for them to let him stay on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460.md?page=14)