Ahmaud was murdered

I don't think you know how police do things.

The next time a police officer tries stopping you to interrogate you about something, try running away and see what happens.
High probability of being tazered.

 

I agree with that.

I'm just not sure that cutting him off in the middle of the street while he was running away in this situation actually constitutes prevention of his ability to leave.
Seems to me more like trying to slow him down or intimidating him into stopping.

Whether an active duty police officer would have had a lawful right to prevent his ability to leave, that is probably a more complicated and controversial question.
(And very relevant to whether they had a right to cut him off in the middle of the street, since if an officer could not stop them then what they were doing had no justifiable purpose)

 

I've demonstrated I know more than you do about their legal abilities.

And if they had no probable cause for stopping you, they are at fault.

 

Finally, we're getting somewhere! So their actions were unjustified. We finally agree about that. Cool.

 

Physically preventing something isn't preventing that thing?

Physically blocking his way and telling him that they will kill him if he doesn't stop isn't "intimidating him into stopping?"

 

You know very well this is kind of a grey zone. Cutting somebody off while they are running away certainly isn't kidnapping, arresting, or detaining them.

 

Again, that's not quite what I said.
I just said they probably did not have the right to prevent him from leaving. But what they did was not exactly preventing him from leaving. Maybe more like slowing him down.

It's a grey zone situation here.

If they were doing this while he was walking or jogging at a slow pace, while staying along the main road, it would be a very different situation.

But he was running fast, trying to get away from them, and they were probably concerned about losing track of his location.

 

You know very well that's bull ****. Yes. Physically blocking someone's escape is detaining them. I'm sure you can find some lobotomy patient to agree with you, but no one capable of basic human thought can agree with you. Physical prevention of further movement and threats of lethal force in order to prevent further movement are detainment. I'm trying to treat you seriously, but if you can't even realize that, then you are just being completely dishonest.

 

Yes, it is. You agreed, explicitly, with my statement that "There was no justification for their attempts to forcefully prevent his lawful ability to leave." No justification = unjustified. That's what the word ****ing means.

 

It depends for what purpose we are using the word "detain".

It's not the same type of detain as physically preventing them from moving in any direction, and getting very close to that person to restrain them.

 

But I disagreed with what you meant by "preventing his lawful ability to leave".
So once again, the two of us seem to be attaching different meanings to the same words.

 

Physically blocking his path and telling him they will kill him if he leaves is preventing him from leaving, no matter how fast he was running. Please. Try. Thinking.

Bull ****, and you know it.

His speed doesn't matter. At all. In any way.

He had the legal right to get away from them. They had no right to threaten lethal force to "track his location."

 

You had already admitted before that he had the lawful ability to leave. Now you are backtracking.

 

They were trying to physically prevent him from moving away from them. You would look a lot less foolish if you would spend at least 10 minutes looking into the facts of what happened.

 

That's the thing. They aren't the police so don't enjoy the same protections or have the same power to arrest someone.

 

So... not murder if it was the police. But murder if other people did it.

That brings into mind some very interesting potential situations.
For example, if someone is killing me, I can't be entirely sure whether I am being murdered at that time.

 

Do you think if those three had been wearing fake police uniforms, that would have prevented this death?

Or do you think Arbery would have acted the exact same way?

Or do you think that doesn't matter?

 

A different costume wouldn't make these criminal thugs any less criminal.

 

Im certain they believed their cause was justified at the time. I also believe most senseless murders are commited by people who believe, at the time, their cause to murder is justified. Emotional distress does that... Civilization is founded upon suppression of violent emotional reactions. Whether its 3 guys who believe they've finally found the thief thats been stealing their stuff, or whether its the rabid progressive whose certain a MAGA hat means Nazi.

If Arbery believed he was about to he lynched, ie- his pursuers were going to kill him no matter what he did, then fighting back incrrases his chances of survival. Or maybe just increases his chances of entering Valhalla after he's defeated in combat... w/e.

To put it bluntly, this was a vigilante act. I dont use the word as most people do (and I cant actually say what my precise views on vigilanteism are or this post will be deleted...). But I will say that vigilanteism runs counter to the values of law that civilization depends on. When engaging in vigilanteism, the vigilante is accepting a certain amount if risk, including the risk of veing persecuted by the state in its enforcement of the law. These three gambled that A- they had the right guy (we'll never know) and B- that they could subdue him so they could be proven right. They failed. The continuance of civilization requires they be punished.

If things had gone their way- Arbery submitted, and was in fact the thief, they would have been fine. But that didnt happen and they either logically knew it might not happen or they weren't able to consider it through their emotional state. Either way, they broke the law and killed a guy and even if they had the best of intentions, they still have to pay the price.

Thats what I would he arguing if I were on the jury, anyway.

 

If the police are acting within their authority to perform their duties, then legally it's not murder.

 

Okay, but then the question is how much punishment, and whether this should be punished like an ordinary murder.

 

And two police could potentially kill each other and it would not be murder, correct?

 

Was one trying to hinder the lawful duty of another?

Your point about citizen's having the authority to carry out police duties has many holes. For instance, should citizens be allowed to perform traffic stops and search vehicles?

 

I think they should be punished for involuntary or negligent homicide. Whatever georgia calls 'killing someone wrongly while commiting another crime, without having intended to kill'.

 

I don't think there is a specific legal category for that. Not everything can be bundled up so nice and neat in the law.