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

At what point exactly does an "attempt" actually become a crime? If an individual researches where that other person lives? If that person steps out of their home and is walking on their way to kill that person? If that person buys a gun?
All those actions could have only been taken in the "attempt" to commit a crime, but that does not make those actions crimes.

 

The law disagrees. So we've established that your entire "legal" basis is centered on an imaginary world in which it is not a crime to attempt to murder someone or kidnap them. Here in reality, those are actually crimes. No court in the world would allow you to take the stand and say, "Your honor, I know my client tried to murder someone, but they didn't actually murder anyone! So attempted murder is just an equivocation!"

The law defines what attempts consist of.

 

If I am understanding you correctly, you seem to be claiming that they were committing "a felony" because of what they were thinking, therefore they did not have the right to shoot Arberry in self defense, even though they would have if they were not thinking of that thing.

 

Typically it involves intent + any step toward the crime intended. If you have shown intent and you take any action in furtherance of that attempt. So, if you intend to criminally detain someone, and then you chase them down with your truck, block their path, and point a ****ing shotgun in their face, that's an attempt.

 

They committed a crime because of their actions, not their thoughts alone. They were not acting in self defense. Arbery (whose name for some reason you have refused, for pages now, to spell correctly) did.

 

In other words, that IS part of argument, that they are guilty because of their thoughts.

Can we go over exactly what they did that you believe constitutes "felony kidnapping"?

Not just all of them all lumped together, but go over each one individually.

Here's what I see: They gave chase. The older McMichael in the driver's seat cut off Arberry's path in the middle of the road. The older McMichael allegedly said that he would shoot Arberry (which could be a crime if true).

That doesn't seem to constitute criminal kidnapping or attempted kidnapping in a criminal way.
Even if you believe that it makes the older McMichael guilty, that does not necessarily take away the right to self defense of the younger McMichael.

And the third man, how is he even guilty in all this?

 

They are guilty because of their actions. Their motives matter, but they are not guilty for their thoughts alone.

Well, a great example is attempting to perform a citizen's arrest without legal authority or justification for doing so.

First of all it is true. He admitted to it. Second of all, the younger was driving, not the older. Third, for some odd reason you STILL CAN'T EVEN SPELL THE VICTIM'S NAME RIGHT.

Using physical force and physical threats to prevent someone from travelling freely is, indeed, kidnapping.

The younger McMichael was also guilty and initiated physical force against Arbery.

Aside from assaulting Arbery with his vehicle and illegally helping to "box him in" to prevent his escape?

 

Did he? Was this before he acted in self defense?

Sorry, I just can't argue with you when you're being vague and not going into specifics.

Oh I see. So cutting off his path in the road with his vehicle was "assault".
I think I'm done arguing with you.

You're just relying on misleadingly loaded words for your argument.

 

For the sake of argument, let's say that their thoughts are completely irrelevant and only their actions matter. So let's argue just about that, for right now.

Yeah, once again, we run into this same issue, "attempting".

I refuse to engage in a semantics argument with you. So you will have to get into more detail about what that "attempting" is.

Otherwise there is no argument.

 

Before, both by using his vehicle and by pointing a shotgun at his face. And he was never acting in self defense.

I've provided specifics. The "vagueness" exists only in your imagination.

Chasing him with a vehicle while he is on foot and cutting off his ability to escape is assault, yes. How did you not already know this? I'm serious. How. Did. You. Not. Already. Know?

The court, and the jury, and the law, disagree. You are making up semantics where they don't exist in order to pretend that felonies are legal as long as you like the felons.

 

You are the one injecting false semantics. They tried to physically restrain his movement in an unlawful way. Plain and simple. There's a reason why you can't discuss any of the facts or any of the actions of these men.

 

I'd hardly call them cutting off his path running in the street "illegally restraining his movement".
He wouldn't even stop to talk to them, and he was running (not just jogging) away. (and yes I recognize he had no legal obligation to stay)

 

The law, and basic human reasoning, disagrees.

HE HAD NO OBLIGATION TO. Especially seeing as they were chasing him with guns and at least one of them was threatening to kill him.

He was running before they ever pulled out of their driveway. HE WAS RUNNING ALREADY. RUNNING IS A COMMON HOBBY.

You go back and forth on whether you realize that or not. Still waiting on you to make up your mind there. If he had no legal obligation to stay, then he had the legal right to resist them if they used force to try to MAKE him stay.

 

You claim that them cutting off his path in the street takes away their right to use self defense if he then attacks them.

Talk about "basic human reasoning".

 

The moment they commit a felony against him, and they did, he is the one acting in self defense.

They chased him down.

They blocked his ability to escape, which was his legal right.

They threatened to kill him.

They pointed a gun at his face.

You are asking me to believe that you are to ignorant to realize that these are threats. I can't make the assumption.

No one on this planet is actually dumb enough to think that resisting these actions isn't self defense, but shooting someone for resisting these actions is. No one. No amount of lobotomizing could make anyone that braindead.

 

Your argument on this point is entirely predicated on the claim that they committed a prior felony.

We've already discussed this.

No, one of them allegedly threatened him.
(That wasn't the man he attacked, by the way)

 

Which was totally justified at that point.
Already discussed.

 

You keep repeating that.

Will you concede that them chasing him down, by itself, did not constitute an illegal act? (or at least certainly did not constitute a felony)

 

Which they did.

We've already discussed this.

All three threatened him. And it isn't just "alleged"
(That wasn't the man he attacked, by the way)[/QUOTE]You are literally arguing that pointing a gun at someone's face isn't a threat. You really expect me to believe you are so deluded that you believe it isn't a threat to point a gun at someone after you've chased them down and cut off their escape? Really? Really? Please defend this.

 

You can't point a gun at someone's face just because they are running away from you. How is it that this is your first time encountering that concept?

 

It wasn't even really the type of threat that would warrant an attack. In my opinion.

Whatever logic you have on this shouldn't really apply.

 

Chasing him down was illegal, absent a legal justification. None of which has been provided. And, yes, it is a felony. You can't chase someone down with a truck, cut off their escape, and point a gun in their face without legal justification. Doing so without such justification is, of course, a crime.

 

No, we just seem to be going round and round in circular arguments.

You are not making logical sense.

 

I'm not wasting my time with you anymore.

I've already explained why there was valid reasons to you multiple times.

 

Illegally pointing a gun at someone's face doesn't warrant using physical force to prevent them from doing so? That is, flat out, the most insane thing I've ever read on these forums.