Guns owners chase and kill black man who was jogging

of course he did. there were 2 choices. Be kidnapped, or defend yourself.

it's the flight or fight response. He tried to flee initially, but they would not let him. His only other choice was to fight.

 

Yes, like how a cornered animal might respond.

He could have kept moving away at a walking pace.

He did not want to wait up for police to show up to the scene. I think that's what this was about.

 

yes, as humans are animals like every other living creature walking on 2 or 4 legs.

no he couldn't have. They blocked him with their vehicle.

what you think has no bearing on reality.

 

He didn't want the Po Po to show up because his "story" that he was just "jogging" would not be believed by the Cops and he would probably get arrested for trespassing at least.

I mean, who jogs wearing construction work boots?

 

There was a few of them, the last one happened just before he was chased down and got himself shot.

 

The burglary is not why he was shot, he was shot because he tried to take a loaded firearm from another person and that's a felony that can justify the use of deadly force.

This is similar to what happened between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, with a twist, Zimmerman pursued Martin and Martin standing his ground attacked Zimmerman, who shot Martin claiming it was in self defense.

However in that case Zimmerman was the aggressor and Martin was the victim, however Martin did not know Zimmerman was armed, in this case, based on what has been published, Arbrery knew he was dealing with an armed person and tried to relieve that person of their firearm, at that point he became the aggressor and the shooter the victim.

 

Incorrect, he chose to walk in front of the vehicle and engage the occupants.

 

Not be stealing someone's else's firearm, that criminal and a justification to be shot.

 

Is there any video of him stealing anything? I expected to see a vid of him stealing

 

The crime of burglary does not require someone steal something, the fact they entered the building is enough to make it a crime.

 

I guess I should have been arrested a ton when I was a kid for going into homes being built in our neighborhood. What a criminal I was

 

Wasn't one of them supposed to be an off duty Police officer? Don't disagree with you necessarily BTW I can certainly see the risks involved in doing so. And that comes back to what grounds they had for being suspicious in the first place. If, as some posters have indicated there is clear evidence available proving the victim was involved in burglaries around the time in question I would assume the investigating authorities have access to it. So why the charges? Looks like we wait until the prosecution and defense have all their ducks in a row and the facts become clearer.

 

Entering the building does not necessarily equate to burglary. Burglary requires the illegal entry AND the commission or the intent of the commission of a felony (typically stealing). Where this will get legally tricky is whether or not it is deemed an intent to commit that furtherance crime. The fact that he left, on his own accord, without taking anything, does not bode well for the father and son. And I am not trying to sugarcoat his actions. Just viewing it from the legal standpoint. He very well may have went in there to steal or to case the joint, but when he walks out on his own, without stealing, the argument of trespassing and not burglary will come into play.

When I say these two dipshits should not have went after him, I am saying that for their good, more so than the Arbery.

 

He was not off duty. I believe he used to be L.E. years ago.

Part of the reason for the charges may be that the father and son did not see him so much as go into the building. I believe they simply saw him running down the street and had earlier suspicions about him. If that is true, they had no grounds to try to detain him. I see this whole case hinging on the scuffle, not on the entrance to that building. It will come down to whether or not the father and son crossed some barrier where their actions were a reasonable threat to Arbrery. If it is a reasonable threat, then he was warranted in trying to defend himself, including going after their weapons. If it was not a reasonable threat, then the father and son were justified in defending themselves.

Long and short of it, this is going to get ugly.

 

I have been watching this pretty closely and all I have to add is indeed I think the two morons are right where they belong. These two had not witnessed anything and were just being incredibly stupid. Personally I think the retired/ex cop just can't let go of the cop thing and his kid is just a wanna be. These two idiots give good gun owners a black eye that the anti's are salivating at and all this arguing back and forth just feeds their oft stated goal to ban guns in one form or another. If more info comes out to refute this fine, but at this point it doesn't exist. I have done the very thing Arbery had done. Just walking thru homes under construction just to check them out.

Here is a better take that share my opinions on this.

 

Incorrect, burglary is the unauthorized entry to a building for any reason.

 

no, he was chased by a man on foot and in a vehicle. He crossed the road in order to avoid them. He was stopped and blocked by the truck, then the men got out brandishing firearms.

 

nope. He was defending himself from an attempted kidnapping by armed men. He had every right to defend himself, and disarm his attackers. McMichaels had no justification to shoot, which is why they are charged with murder and aggravated assault.

 

Not possible, he crossed in front of the truck, if they where chasing him he would have been run over.

 

Incorrect, once he went for the gun in an attempt to disarm that person he moved from victim to aggressor.

Again incorrect once attacked he had every right to defend himself and shoot the attacker.

 

the video clearly shows they used the truck to block his escape, then exited brandishing firearms. That is just the objective reality of what happened.

 

not according to any law in any part of the US. McMichaels was the aggressor. Arbery defended himself. It's why they are charged with murder and aggravated assault.

not according to any law in any state in the US

 

Was that one lane of road the only way in our out? What Ahmaud Arbery surrounded on all sides by physical barriers, preventing him from simply changing direction?

 

Irrelevant. he was being chased both on foot and with a vehicle. They blocked his path and brandished firearms. Arbery had the absolute right to defend himself against these two who were attempting to kidnap him.