Ahmaud was murdered

You know all too well this isn't the "standard" type of "stalking" and "detaining".

So it depends what that is exactly and the situation. Those words by themselves don't necessarily mean anything.

 

I haven't watched the entire trial, so there may be evidence the jury knows that I don't. But from what I have heard and seen, I think it was murder. Since I'm a "trumpist" sorry to disillusion you. I also have every expectation that the jury will get it right, especially after the Rittenhouse jury got it right.

I hope all liberals are hoping for a verdict that is true to the rule of law and the facts, rather than a verdict that will further the narrative that this is a racist country.

 

He ran at one of them.

You can argue that maybe he was baited into attacking, but this is still not an "ordinary murder", the way I see things.

The guy holding the gun had to shoot at that point, otherwise the suspect (who seemed to be acting irrationally) would have totally beaten the man, grabbed the gun, and could have used it against them.

 

Acting irrationally? He was being chased by armed men threatening his life and barring his path. "Oh no, the guy we are victimizing is fighting back and defending himself against our illegal actions" isn't a defense.

 

What is key here is the law. They had no right to try and detain him with a citizens arrest according to the citizen's arrest law of the state, their main argument and now moot. If he had grabbed the gun and used it against them it could be considered self defense.

 

They weren't maintaining a distance.

He wasn't fleeing the scene of a crime.

Running away from armed men attempting to illegally detain him and threatening his life.

That's called detaining. You don't get to detain someone just because you want to keep tabs on them.

More unhinged fantasies.

Why are you putting "stalking" in quotation marks now? You used the word yourself before. And I agree, it is different. It's way more severe on the part of the stalkers.

 

Jeez @yardmeat we rarely agree but this is about the law like the Rittenhouse case. The defense argument has fallen apart. No telling what the Jury will decide but by law they were in the wrong.

 

This was a good old-fashioned Georgia lynching. No more, no less...

 

The scary thing about this whole case is that they would have gotten away with murder if the defendant hadn't released the dashcam footage. The entire case was buried for two months by a corrupt DA.

 

Understand that they are percieving me as a threat.

 

Yep, maybe not threaten to kill them for running and block their legal right to escape on top of that.

 

No. The difference is of placing oneself into danger vs trying to escape danger.

 

They had no right to make a citizens arrest. No felony was committed. All they saw him do was trespass which is a misdemeanor.

 

Or they could have just followed him from a distance and not block him in. They wanted to murder this man.

 

I do tend to agree with you from what has been presented. This in no way is a comparison to the Rittenhouse/Kenosha ordeal. You don't make a citizens arrest while brandishing a shotgun. That is my take. Whether or not the kid was a thief (and I am not clear on that) makes no difference. It's not like they caught him in the act. These guys I feel are thugs, and they may or may not be racist to boot! Murder is murder so we need no race card here!

 

Okay... but Arbery was not really bettering his chances of "escaping danger" by running at and trying to overtake one of them.

I might be willing to agree that those three placed themselves in danger (or into that situation), but it was for what some might argue was for a justified cause - or maybe only partially justified.

 

His other options involved putting himself entirely at the mercy of these maniacs. He had no reason to believe his chances would be better there.

They absolutely created that situation.

No rational person can argue their cause was justified. None.

 

Why not? Is that not the appropriate way to carry out a citizens arrest? Is there some better way.

I do not even see evidence that the three had actually attempted to carry out a citizens arrest yet. It seemed like they were trying to follow the suspect to keep an eye on his location, and then they cut him off in the middle of the road to try to slow him down and intimidate him into stopping.

I think they wanted him to stop until the police could arrive to interview him, or at least continue at a slower pace. If he had just been jogging at a normal speed and stayed along the main street, they may likely not have cut him off and just continued to trail him until the police arrived.

I see a HUGE difference between actually initiating trying to carry out a citizens arrest and what they did.

 

I'm arguing it, and I'm very rational.

We all know it would have been rational and normal for police to have tackled him to the ground and probably used a tazer on him, if police had been there and he was running away.

 

You are finally admitting it was an attempted arrest!!! Now if only you could justify it.

They have admitted that's what they were doing. Their actions and words demonstrate this was their intent. You are literally asking us to ignore their words, ignore their actions, ignore their own stated intent, an just accept that you know more about their motives than they do. That's insane.

If that were true, they would have said so, they wouldn't have cut him off, and they wouldn't have threatened to kill him if he didn't stop.

But, predictably, you will run away from all of those facts and keep playing make believe.

 

If you read my post carefully, no I was not.

 

Your argument isn't. If you are rational, then you've abandoned your rationality here.

Nope. You can't just attack someone for running away. Even if you are a cop. Not here in America. Not legally. You have to be able to articulate probable cause in relation to a specific crime. You can't just run down whoever you want. How is it that this is your first time hearing about this?

 

That might be. But as far as their actions actually go, in my opinion, I do not see the citizens arrest attempt as actually having begun, since there did exist other reasons for their actions up to that point.

 

There was no legal justification for their attempts to forcefully prevent his lawful ability to leave. None at all.