Guns owners chase and kill black man who was jogging

The law clearly defines who had the right in this situation. It was not the 3 attackers who murdered the unarmed black man.

 

We can't see what happened behind the vehicle in that video. Why did it seem the black man was running towards them?

 

We have the statements of the killers. They chased him, cornered him and attempted to detain him. They can’t do that. He had every right to defend himself.

 

You do realize police would have very likely done the same thing.

 

And it would be murder as well if they did it.

 

Morally, perhaps yes. However, one could also argue that any law which is unnecessary is also murder, by that same type of argument.

Police will stop people all the time for suspicion. If you resist, run away, use physical force, something bad will happen.

 

Not just morally, but legally as well. You can’t kill an unarmed person who is defending themselves from an illegal detention.

yes, police trample constitutional rights on a daily basis. This does not change the fact that it is illegal.

 

When you start trying to define exactly what "illegal" is, you'll start running into some problems in these sort of situations.

It certainly isn't as cut and dried as you think.

Now, backtracking a little bit, is your argument that it was illegal because they weren't police, or illegal because of the type of situation it was?

If your argument is only the former, then this isn't really a gun control issue, and this story wouldn't belong in this section of the forum.

 

No you don’t. The law is crystal clear on this.

It most certainly is.

Both. They had no authority or right to try and detain him, let alone brandish weapons and eventually murder him.

This is not a gun control issue.

 

Well, the argument that they don't have a right to detain him because they weren't police doesn't really belong in this thread, would you agree?

Because that really has little to do with the legality of guns. Switch out those men with police and it would have been the same situation.

So that leaves the other argument, that whoever it was, police or private citizens, they would not have had the right to do this.

Now, please think about that, think about it carefully. Are you arguing police would not have had a right to stop this man? Or that police would only be allowed to use non-lethal force, even if they felt the man was posing a threat to them?

Well, thank you for recognizing that in this thread.
At least one person saying this story is not a gun control issue.

 

Not anymore. The united state supreme court has ruled that even if a search by law enforcement is without legal justification, it can be justified after the fact by finding evidence of wrongdoing.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/bs-md-supreme-court-decision-reaction-20160620-story.html

The Supreme Court on Monday empowered police to stop people on the streets and question them, even when it is not clear they have done anything wrong.


In a 5-3 ruling, the Supreme Court relaxed the so-called exclusionary rule and upheld the use of drug evidence found on a Utah man who was stopped illegally by an officer in Salt Lake City.


The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, said that because the Salt Lake City man had an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic violation, the illegality of the stop could be ignored.

Then he could have sued them in a court of law afterward, had he not taken action to give them reason to fear for their own safety.

 

Why wouldn’t it?

I think this thread is in the wrong forum.

No, the police had no more right to detain him than these men did.

 

Anyone who defends the scumbags who chased down and killed an innocent man is a worthless piece of...

 

The video shows the black man running towards the people who shot him.

The circumstances are obviously a little more complex than you stated.

 

Like I said...anyone defending the scumbag killers is a piece of...

 

Come back to the discussion when the grand jury issues its decision. If no decision is made to indite, then the two are considered innocent of the charges against them.

Unless of course what is being supported on the part of yourself is vigilante justice where they are killed by the community at large.

 

So you must think OJ didn't kill Nicole Simpson because he wasn't found guilty. Weeeeeeeeeeee

 

That's not the propensity inference, and that's not what that case says. The case says, since he had an open warrant out for his arrest he was amenable to being stopped and searched and seized of his liberty by police at any time and thus can't complain that the officer had no probable cause initially for that stop, which he absolutely did not have without the warrant, because the warrant gives a cop carte blanche to **** with him whether he knows about it or not.

The propensity inference is when I argue that because the defendant had X prior he therefore is more likely to have committed this current crime, or even that he MUST have committed this current crime. Ex: He's got a prior for sexual assault. Clearly he's guilty of this rape. Ex2: He's got a prior for assault as a juvenile, its obvious therefore that the struggle shown in the tape is likewise him assaulting someone without cause.


This situation is not analogous to the case however, because the McMichaels are not law enforcement and even if they can shelter under the citizen's arrest statute they don't count as law enforcement and do not receive qualified immunity. They also don't get to shelter under the law enforcement specific recent rulings that ignorance of the law is an excuse to a reasonable police officer. Because they are not bonded law enforcement officers.
So even IF Arbery had a warrant out for his arrest, which he did not, and the other facts remained the same, they would not be able to use this law enforcement specific bullshit handwaive ruling of the constitution because they are not law enforcement even when effecting a citizen's arrest.

Actually no he would not have been able to maintain a cause for false imprisonment without resisting them. You're also not required to stop for highwaymen waylaying you on a public street, and as the initial aggressors the McMichaels are estopped from claiming self defense under these facts.


In conclusion: You normally sound like you have done the research. You do not sound like that here. Put a little more effort into googling next time.

 

The case was cited due to arguments presented at the time it was unfolding. Law enforcement admitted during oral arguments the search was without basis, as the officer in question had no knowledge of the arrest warrant. The entire search was justified at the time merely because the individual who was searched happened to be in the same area at the same time as the law enforcement officer. It was admitted the arrest warrant was not discovered until after the fact when evidence of criminal activity was uncovered during the search.

 

Which is again: Not the propensity inference, nor does that allow what you're trying to bootstrap it to.

The man in question had an open warrant: A free order from a court that says "I DEMAND you **** with this guy and bring him to me". Therefore: Any ****ing with him was justified by those justified in serving warrants IE ACTUAL COPS. BONDED LAW ENFORCEMENT. Not Cletus and Jr.

Here: Arbery had no open warrant. Therefore someone needs to GENERATE PC on him to **** with him, and that must be done properly. See the open warrant constitutes PER SE PC on him for a cop, even if the cop doesn't know about it because its an order from a court for his arrest and cops are at all times charged with serving these warrants on a person wherever and however encountered. Without 1) an open warrant for arrest and 2) the person authorized to enforce that warrant for arrest, you don't have a way to analogize the case.

As to what officers were initially doing when the court said THEY DIDN"T HAVE THE JUSTIFICATION TO STOP THE MAN and would've been in trouble had he not coincidentally had an open warrant: What is your point see the rather subtle point I make in the phrase prior to the colon. It also: APPLIES TO COPS not to non law enforcement.

So: generate PC for Cletus or Jr., and stop trying to shelter under a set of circumstances which does not apply.

 

no they aren't. the video clearly shows he was being pursued by 2 armed men, and we have the statements from the shooters themselves. This is crystal clear cut and dry murder.

 

Here's the video:



0:32 he's on the right side of the truck, and then by 0:33 he appears to have crossed to the other side (just on the left side). And the man holding the gun is still to the left of him, indicating that the jogger ran towards the man.

You can obviously see a struggle for the gun.

 

Grabbing a loaded shotgun is not defending ones self, it's stupidity.

 

What would you do if unarmed while out jogging and chased down and confronted by two armed men? Cower or fight for your life?

 

Georgia law allows citizens to have loaded guns in their vehicles. Stricter gun control could have prevented this tragedy.