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

didn't petition the court for separate trials. Probably because their attorney advised them not to it's harder to get all three on the same crime than it is to get them individually on the crimes they're individually guilty of.

They are allowed to follow him they should have done that. They chose to get out and confront him with weapons and you can't do that. That most certainly is a misdemeanor possibly a felony. I'm not 100% sure about Georgia laws on that

So if I'm on arbery had a firearm even if he wasn't legally allowed to possess it shot McMichaels and killed him that would have been self-defense.

If that's the case would make Michaels did was murder.

As far as the other people involved I think they got the conviction because they were tried together. The other McMichaels and the guy video taping it will probably appeal.

If they do their appeal will have a possibility of succeeding.

 

All three were committing felonies. Aggravated assault and attempted kidnaping.

No. Read the post.

Aggravated assault is violent. Attempted kidnapping is violent. Pointing a gun at someone is violent.

Constantly burying your head in the sand to avoid basic objective truths won't make you win the argument.

They tried to physically prevent him from running away. They threatened to kill him if he kept running. HE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO RUN AWAY. If he were, he'd still be alive.

They WERE NOT JUST FOLLOWING HIM. This is based entirely on your fantasies and your refusal to even look at any of the basic facts of the case.

Also THEY DIDN'T CALL THE POLICE BEFORE PURSUING. Travis admitted this on the witness stand. So your whole "follow him until police arrive" excuse, like your claims about him having a hammer or breaking into a run upon being chased, is complete garbage.

 

We've already discussed this. The attempted kidnapping did not begin, not in a way that would constitute a felony.

Cutting off his path was not "kidnapping" and should likely not have even constituted a felony. Even if you view cutting off his path as "kidnapping", not all three of them are necessarily responsible for that.

What did they do that constituted "aggravated assault"? Not seeing that all.
(Remember, we are talking before Arbery tried running at one of them)

 

They did call police during the process while they were persuing. The police were called before Arbery ran at one of them.


Maybe they didn't feel they had immediate time to call police while they began chasing. It's illegal to talk on a phone and drive, don't you know?
It was only a few minutes before police were called anyway.

 

Just before shooting him. Not before their criminal pursuit.

After being the victim of felonies, including having someone point a gun at his face.

Then why not call before chasing him? Also, there were two people in first truck. You are seriously telling me that BOTH of them were driving and were unable to operative a phone? Both of them? Even though one of them actually did end up operating a phone just before the shots? Your fake defenses are getting increasingly desperate.

 

I believe it is unrealistic to expect that they should have called police before starting the pursuit. There would not have been enough time.
Also the third guy giving chase did not even know exactly what to expect at that time, so it would have been unreasonable to call police at that time.

You're being unrealistic here.

When should they have called police? Before they got into the car? It could take several minutes before that phone call was done. While they had just begun driving and were following the running suspect? I think their focus was on driving and trying to begin to assess the situation. Talking on the phone is illegal and could increase their chances of getting into a car accident. I think a delay of a few minutes is totally reasonable, given the circumstances.

 

There was a driver and a passenger. They had a truck. The guy was running on foot. The idea that there was no time for even the passenger to call the police is completely insane. You apparently believe that Arbery faster than a truck could keep up with and that both men were driving the truck such that neither could operate a phone.

He could have easily called the police. Instead, he resorted to aggravated assault and aiding in attempted kidnapping.

You are completely unwilling to examine the facts of the matter.

 

Sorry, we've already discussed this.

That didn't happen until he was running towards the truck and seemingly using it as an obstacle.

 

A passenger standing in the back platform of the truck. I don't know if you've ever done that, but it's kind of challenging to make a phone call while in the back of an open pickup truck that is moving fast.

It takes a lot of mental concentration to drive a car, especially in a residential area when you are trying to follow someone who is running, who could suddenly change direction at any time and is trying to evade you.

Need I repeat, it would actually likely have been illegal for the driver to make a phone call while he was driving?

 

Sorry, police were called before any of what you describe happened.

 

This is untrue. The felonies happened before then. The aggravated assaults happened before then. The attempted kidnapping happened before then. Travis pointed a gun at him before then. And using a truck as an obstacle against someone pointing a gun at you is not a crime.

 

Not to the knowledge of those pursuing. None of them had called the police before then.

 

You're just being overly vague, so your arguments are logically vacuous.

I can't argue when you are using words that make it unclear what you are trying to specify or what the actual meaning is.

It seems to me you are just claiming things were "felonies" that are not.

Before when exactly?

 

He wasn't originally standing in the back of the truck. That came later. He was originally sitting in the cab. You'd know this if you had looked into the facts of the case at all.

 

Nothing is vague there. Pretending you are incapable of understanding is not a logical argument.

 

Claiming that someone committed a felony because they did something after committing a felony, that is just circular logic.

Everyone can see this and see your logical fallacy.

Prove he "committed a felony" without using the allegation that he "committed a felony" as the basis for your argument.

And talk about specific people. You can't claim that what person A did was a felony because person B committed a felony.

 

Aggravated assault is a felony. Attempted kidnapping is a felony. Just because you think they should be legal in your fantasy world does not change the fact that they are felonies in our real world.

 

I can't even tell if you are being serious at this point or just parodying the right wing to make them look foolish. Killing someone during the course of a felony is a felony.

 

That depends entirely on what they did in the first place, before killing him, wouldn't you agree?
I thought that's what we were talking about.

The person who killed him actually had to have committed a felony before killing him for the law to consider the act of killing him (in self defense) a crime.

I refuse to repeat myself.
I just addressed that argument.

You are making an equivocation fallacy. "Attempting to commit a crime" is not necessarily the same thing as actually committing that crime. The "kidnapping" (as you claim) had not begun in a way that would constitute a crime yet.

Arberry was not assaulted before he tried to ambush one of them.

 

Attempting to commit a felony is a felony. Attempted murder is a felony, whether or not you succeed. Attempted kidnapping is a felony, whether or not you succeed. No, this is not an equivocation fallacy. It is the law. Feel free to actually review the case some time.

 

Sorry, that is just not true.

If it is, it would be a "thought crime", dependent on mental state, and what an individual was planning in their head or thinking.

They had adequate justified legal reason to chase.

 

What are you even talking about? There was no attempted murder.

Oh, I see, this is a hypothetical.

For attempted murder to be a crime, you actually have to engage in actions likely to set in motion the death of that person which is then outside your control and personal decision. It's a little more complicated than that.

 

Is attempted murder a felony, yes or no. Is attempted kidnapping a felony, yes or no?

 

Correct: there was only actual murder. But you claimed that attempted crimes aren't crimes. I gave you an example for why this is wrong. I gave you the example of attempted murder. You say this isn't a crime, reality says it is. Feel free to use the example of attempted kidnapping if you want, instead.

 

Yes it totally is!

It depends. It depends very much on what that "attempt" consisted of.