Travis McMichael says in his murder trial that he felt threatened by Ahmaud Arbery

What we have aren't Rambo types running around. What we have are people running around trespassing and sneaking into private garages and homes at night, stealing. We also have hordes of violent rioters, razing cities, burning, assaulting, looting, and spreading fear. When you have this you will have the occasional citizen who involves themselves in the matter because it is their neighborhoods and cities in the cross hairs of criminals. God forbid good people get involved, eh? And let not free men act uprightly but as door mats to the brute? Our own nations liberty was won in war, not reason or court. sheesh

 

The owner of the property says nothing was stolen. This was a property under construction. It isn't even criminal trespassing to walk onto such a property unless you've been trespassed -- told not to enter. SEVERAL other people had entered the same property without getting chased. Arbery was the only one. Arbery was not rioting, razing cities, burning, assaulting, or looting. "But I got scared about something I saw on TV happening in another state, so I decided to chase down and murder this rando," isn't a legitimate excuse. It's criminal homicide. God forbid? No, the LAW forbids these people from getting involved. They weren't acting uprightly and THEY were the brutes. But thank you for at least admitting that their actions were warlike and not reasonable or lawful.

 

A litany of excuses and distortions do not the truth make.

 

Your inability and unwillingness to discuss the facts of the situation do not the truth make. Just propaganda.

 

So you think McMicheals should be declared not guilty because they were "good people getting involved"?

 

This is not the same case as, for instance, Kyle Rittenhouse.

I think you have 3 good people that were afraid and wanted to stop someone they thought was a criminal. They had, from what I can tell, no legal right to do so.
Good people can accidentally do illegal things for which, we have a real problem if they do not have to face the associated sanction for the transgression.
An analysis from a Canadian lawyer:

 

I'm not sure how relevant "fear" is, other than the sympathy factor.
If someone is charging at you unexpectedly from around a corner, and you have a gun, it is a safe bet they are going to try to either take the gun from you, or severely hurt you.

I think this raises some deeper legal issues, issues which the law itself does not entirely resolve.

 

That isn't what he was saying.

 

That's exactly what he called those bubba assclowns.

 

No he wasn't specifically calling those men good people. You did that.

He was responding to a post that grouped all people who successfully protect themselves and property as vigilantes. The poster He responded to demonized Rittenhouse and these men who shot Armery as in the same group. The poster calls for new laws to keep vigilantes at bay.....but seems to be ok with the criminal element causing chaos unimpeded.

We should clamp down on lawlessness first and then we will have less Rittenhouse cases and less arbery cases and less destruction of property and less mass theft of stores by the criminal element.

 

I did that? Where?

 

For me, the evidence in this case isn't clear, or cut and dried. The three bozos who decided they could play Barney isn't a good look. My thoughts are that these clowns should have called police and made a case. Their zeal to "citizen arrest" someone was likely (my opinion here) stupid. I suspect that it was also less than altruistic. I suspect that dude with a shot gun was likely very fearful of being significantly hurt by the man ultimately killed. That, in my mind however, doesn't constitute a reason for a self defense offer as the man with shotgun certainly appears to have been the aggressor here. I see dude going to jail.

 

If someone is chasing you down in a truck, tries running you off the road, threatens to blow your head off, has cut off your only avenue of escape, and exists their vehicle with a shotgun, you are the one who has the reasonable fear of your life. You are the one who has every right to try to take his gun away and defend yourself.

If I threaten someone and they try to take my gun away, I don't get to claim that I shot him because I thought he might match my previous threat. The instigator matters.

 

So it should also be okay to do that to police?

 

By the time the police would have arrived, the suspect would be gone.

They could have tried following and trailing him, but if the subject ran, it would have ended up being the exact same situation.

 

And we still don't know for certain that Arbery didn't do what they suspected him of.

Of course this isn't proof of guilt, but it was a little strange that he was in that neighborhood, since he didn't know anyone there, it was far away from where he lived.
And someone with an appearance similar to his was seen on a security camera at a construction site in that neighborhood. Assuming that was indeed him, that also adds a little bit of suspicion, though should not be seen as a crime.

 

Are you being serious?
You really should do a little reading on a subject prior to posting about them. It's not a good look.

 

This wasn't the police, and if police try to illegally detain you and threaten to kill you, then yes, you should be allowed to act in self defense against them as well.

 

Yes, we do, and they had no specific crime that they suspected him. They just thought that maybe he stole "something" from the construction site. He didn't.

"Seems a little strange" is not grounds for a citizen's arrest.

A construction site from which nothing was stolen, and which wouldn't even be a crime to be at unless he had been trespassed, and which several other people had entered without being chased down.

Agreed . . . meaning the criminals here were these three guys.

 

Good point. KR used minimum force to defend himself - no collateral damage or casualties.
The Army War College should ask him to conduct a seminar.

 

The suspect was running at him at full speed, obviously about to either headbutt him, smack him down to the ground, and/or pry away his gun.

 

That's not really true. There had been thefts from construction sites not too long prior.

 

All of which would have been justified in self defense at that point.

 

Then what, specifically, did they suspect him of stealing?

 

I don't think they were going to arrest him.
They wanted to identify who this person was.
Or possibly follow him and slow him down from running away until the police could arrive and handle things.