Ahmaud was murdered

Please read. Read it slow if you need to. It. Is. Legal. To. Chase. Under. SPECIFIC. CIRCUMSTANCES. Your favorite violent criminals did not meet those circumstances. Their pursuit was criminal. Do you require further education?

 

They were contacting DURING the shooting. And the pursuit was illegal. Note: humans capable of thinking understand that this doesn't mean that ALL pursuit is illegal. THIS pursuit was illegal. Not ALL pursuit. THIS pursuit. Humans capable of basic rational thought can grasp this concept. Can you?

 

I agree what happened to Ahmad archery was a murder.

As far as the gun rights advocates at US citizens because I think most people advocate to Constitution. The right to own a gun doesn't give people the right to murder.

I don't know why you're trying to make those two things connected.

 

. . . yes . . . motive is relevant. Is this your first time encountering a court case in the US?

Except they had "begun to arrest him." Please at least try catching up with the facts.

 

You seem to be saying that if person A cuts off person B's path, and person B attacks person A in response, then any acts that person A does in response to defend themselves from person B's attack should be seen as a completely unjustifiable attack against person B.

Does that really seem entirely reasonable??

 

In my opinion, Arbery made the choice to get killed.

Anyone with half a brain should have known what was probably going to happen to them if they had done that.

You're trying to claim they did not have the right to defend themselves against Arbery's stupid attack.

 

If person A prevents the movement of person B, and they have no lawful cause for doing so, then person A is committing a crime. Person B is perfectly justified in physically resisting such a crime.

 

You argument is that his murder was justified because he should have known that these criminals would murder him if he resisted their violent crime. That's ****ing insane.

 

Replace the word murder with kill.

Your argument is logically meaningless, because it entirely relies on the meaning of a word which your argument does not actually support.

Anyone can see that.

 

Why? The law, and any rational person, can see this was murder. So why should I support your deliberate misrepresentations.

You are LITERALLY arguing that my argument is "logically meaningless" because it relies on the law and on logic. **** that bull ****.

 

I think you are making an overgeneralization.
Physically resisting is a little bit different from trying to run at a guy with a gun and trying to grab it and punch the guy.

Yes, for some crimes that may be true, but not for all crimes.

 

It's a circular argument. You're basically saying "it's murder because my argument is true because it's murder".

 

That's literally physical resistance. And, yes, it is always okay to physically resist a crime. This isn't "true, but not for all crimes." It is always okay to resist a crime.

 

It isn't "circular" if you choose to actually read. Give it a shot.

 

Not when that crime involves a car on the road.

 

The reality of what you're describing is a little more complex than that. Person B might be justified in using physical force to resist in some situations, but that type of "justification" does not totally take away all justification of person A reacting to that physical force if it is an attack.

I think we can enter some really murky ethical rights territory here.
Person A might be partly to blame in the first place, but person B is also partly to blame.
The fact that person B is partly to blame, takes away some of the blame of person A's response to person B.

(we should not make the mistake of conflating "right" with blame. Person B could still have the "right" to do something but still be "to blame")

 

Why do you keep on arguing with me when you agree with me? I merely pointed out that someone made an idiotic post in claiming that the prosecutors won because the defendants never actually put him under a citizen's arrest. Of course they didn't because you can't put a dead man under citizen's arrest. The jury decided that a citizen's arrest was irrelevant to what happened, which is why the defendants lost. Are you going to argue with me yet again? You are so woke you can't even see that I agree with you and correctly predicted that the defendants would be found guilty.