All 3 men guilty of murder in the killing of Ahmaud Arbery

Innocent? I will say innocent of murder. How could they be guilty? That guy tried to do something that had no point, when he ran at the guy with a gun and punched him in the face and was trying to grab his gun away.

How could the other two be guilty of murder when they did not shoot?
Again, there you fall back into a disingenuous legal concept of "felony murder", in which we all know they are not actually guilty, but the law could conceivably be interpreted to say that they are.

 

They are guilty of murder. They killed someone for doing something that was completely legal. He was, in fact, defending himself against their felonies when they murdered him. He had every legal right to grab their gun. They had no legal right to chase him, threaten him, entrap him, and point a gun at him.

 

You just did it again (or at least you overgeneralized again). Which "felony"?

 

No they are not.

Chasing them, even if that hypothetically were illegal, would not make them guilty of murder.
Only in some deluded interpretation of the law.

Even cutting the guy's path off should not make the driver guilty of murder. Even if that were seen as a felony (which I don't think it should).

 

Reality, the law, and the jury say otherwise.

 

They illegally chased this guy down, threatened his life, and falsely imprisoned him. Catch the **** up.

 

It's a drastic overgeneralization to claim they "falsely imprisoned" him.

That's not quite obviously or exactly what happened.

Only one of them sort of threatened his life. And it's not entirely clear that that should even be seen as a felony, though it might be a crime which that individual committed.

What makes you think you are justified in assigning group responsibility for crimes which individual members may have committed?

And yet, one more issue, we could debate whether chasing him was actually illegal (up until the point of cutting his path off). You seem to try to be making the argument that future intentions defines whether a current act is illegal or not. Even though I cannot see why a "state of mind" should make a difference here.

 

I think that claiming what they did was a felony, therefore it is not self defense (even though it would obviously be self defense otherwise) is brain dead.

I think we have to look overall at the entire picture before we just make such a sweeping generalization.

Saying "it was a felony, ergo it was not self defense" is kind of using piecemeal logic. Looking at two different premises in isolation of each other.

 

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say they had some legal justification for at least some of their actions, even if it wasn't totally legally justified?
Should that not be a mitigating factor?

 

It isn't "hypothetically" illegal. It's illegal. It's criminal.

It is a felony, and killing someone during the commission of a felony is felony murder.

 

Nope. It wasn't legally justified. At all. There's no such thing as "kinda legally justified, but maybe not entirely."

 

I'm trying to follow a path of logic for the sake of argument.

What I was saying is that even if you were correct there (which I still disagree with) you would still not overall be right.

 

And that's what I mean by "black & white" thinking.

Does it really have to be "all" or "nothing"?

 

Travis pointed his gun at him for the "crime" of running, when he posed no threat at all.

You can't claim "self defense" when you are the one perpetuating a felony against the other person and they are defending themselves against you. This ain't rocket surgery, bud.

 

Then why can't you provide an actual argument?

 

Just face it, Arbery wouldn't be dead if he hadn't tried something totally stupid and attacked that guy. Even though he had no chance of overpowering him.

Will I grant that Arbery may have had the "legal right" to attack him. Yes I will. But the existence of that does NOT necessarily tie into the legal rights of what the others would have been allowed to do in response. (Yes, there can totally be situations where two different parties have the legal right to attack each other)

Arberry FELT harrassed and cornered, worn down and desperate, probably rageful as well, which is why he did something which any reasonable person would have known would have gotten them killed in that situation.
You can blame (in part) the others for that, if you want, but Arbery played a part in his own death.

 

When it comes to defending yourself against a violent felony . . . yes. That's black and white. It is LEGAL to defend yourself against a violent felony. It is a CRIME to KILL someone for defending themselves against your violent felony. I don't know how to type slower. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can figure this out.

 

Face it, Arbery (at least spell his name ****ing right) would still be alive if 3 violent felons hadn't committed a felony against him.

Yea! You are willing to reluctantly admit that there is a legal right to self defense against felons . . . at least in one breath. But then you claim that the same felons have the legal right to murder someone who hasn't even committed a crime.

You are literally arguing that his legal rights don't matter. Thankfully, this exists only in your authoritarian imagination and has no bearing on our actual laws.

 

But was it actually defending? What does "defending" mean, exactly?
Is it really "defending" when he should totally have known that he had no expected chance of success?
His actions were pointless. The only result of his actions could have been to get him killed.
It's like he chose that.

Imagine if I illegally set up a wood chipper in front of your house and turn it on, and then you, acting stupid, decide to just jump into it. Then your family members blame me for your death.

 

You can't tell the truth because it doesn't fit your search for a culprit best suited to the crime in your own soul. So you bend it to fit, so that someone else pays for your crime and you walk free. Justice isn't being judgmental.

 

I can't tell what you are even trying to say in this word salad. There are laws governing citizen's arrest. You can't arrest someone as a citizen if you aren't following those laws. They were not following those laws. This ain't rocket surgery, bud.

 

You are going to have to take these terrible semantic arguments somewhere else. They threatened to kill him. They pointed a gun at him. His choices were to place himself entirely at the mercy of violent criminals or to defend himself in the only way he possibly could. He chose the later.

Your woodchipper example is unintelligible nonsense. If this were a sentient wood chipper who was chasing you, verbally threatening to kill you, and your only choices were to try to physically resist him or surrender to him and hope he'd show you mercy, then you'd have an actual analogy on your hands. Short of that, your analogy is completely nonsensical.

Serious question: were you aware that you can just run away from a woodchipper and it won't chase you down? . . . This is either the first time learning this, or you are aware that your analogy is dumber than a box of hair.

 

I'm glad you're no one's lawyer.

 

He was running towards them though. So he ran towards the wood chipper in this case.

I suppose you still blame them though, because you think he had a right to attack them, therefore they should not have placed the wood chipper in his path.


And a correction: "They" did not threaten to kill him. One of them may have threatened to kill him. That should be a crime for that one individual, not necessarily the other two. I think you are getting into murky water with that idea.

The threat of killing him still wasn't really justification for him to run at the other guy. If they had wanted to shoot and kill him they obviously already could have. So it was kind of unreasonable to assume that trying to desperately run at one of them would increase his odds of survival.

 

No violent felony was committed.

This has already been explained to you.