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

No, the one does not follow the other.

I happen to believe he did have the "right" to do what he did, but they also had the right to do what they did in response.

 

What other option did he have at that point? His choices were to fight back or submit to the illegal arrest by people who had threatened to kill him.

 

Again, "threatening" is just a semantic argument.

You're conflating two different things under the same category with a word.

 

If you have the right to do something, then you have the right to use violence in defense against those who would use violence to prevent you from doing that thing. Yes, it absolutely follows.

If he had no right to defend himself when prevented from running away, then he had no right to run away. You can't have it both ways.

 

Either "I'll blow your ******n head off" is a threat, or nothing is. You are the one playing semantics here.

 

Why would he be running at somebody with a gun? In self defense, right? If some one catches up with me and they have a gun, grabbing for the gun might be the smartest move.

 

If they had wanted to shoot him before, they could have easily already done it.

 

Either he has a right to run away or they have a right to stop him from running away. You can't have it both ways. You know better than this.

 

I don't believe that's true.

What makes you think only one party can have the right to act in self defense?

 

"I'll blow your ******n head off" is a threat. I'm sorry, but you can't convince me that anyone is braindead enough to not see that.

 

Then you need to think about it a little harder.

 

I don't think you're seeing the forest through the trees.

 

You seem to be relying on simple-minded logic, oversimplification, equivocation fallacies, and isolated piecemeal logic.

(In my opinion)

 

If someone is chasing you and they have a gun you can see....its brandishing. And it would put the fear of God in me. Not you? Strangers with guns chasing you demanding you talk to them is OK? You trust them enough to stop and have a conversation?

 

Also, the guy in the back of the truck had a revolver. No, it isn't easy to shoot a running person from the back of a moving truck with a revolver. You've been watching too many action movies.

 

I'm relying on the law of noncontradiction, which you are violating.

 

The dude is literally arguing that it is "semantics" to say that "I'll shoot your ******n head off" is a threat. That's where we are at.

 

If that is what "brandishing" is defined as, then I would say it is not always wrong, nor should always be illegal.

 

Try to make an argument without using words in ways that could have vague definitions, like "threat" and "brandishing".

 

Both have the right to act in self defense. If you are the one who initiates force, however, you are no longer acting in self defense. You are the aggressor. Your victim is the one acting in self defense.

 

Try to stop pretending that you don't understand that telling someone that you will shoot their head off if they don't obey you is a threat. No one is buying that act.

Weird how courts use words like "threat" and "brandishing" when you think these words have no meaning, right?

 

You do realize that when you submit to an arrest by police, you often cannot know at the time whether it is a legal arrest?

They weren't going to arrest him if he stopped running, or at least stayed in a position on the street where police would likely be able to catch up to the location.

 

I think you are quoting aphorisms because you can't think of a real argument.

 

Are you now admitting this was an arrest? Maybe we are making progress.

 

. . . when you force someone to do that against their will . . . that's a ****ING ARREST!