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

If one of them attempted to lay hands on him before the situation where he charged at one of them, that could very much change my perspective on this.

Can you please provide a quote from a link to show this?

 

Kidnapping ?

 

The law isn't so fair as many people imagine, nor is it always common sense.

Different separate laws can be combined together in ways that do not always make common sense, and sometimes are unfair.

 

Like I've repeated over and over again, their actions up to that point do not really amount to kidnapping.

Especially given the background context of the situation.

 

I think the jury had the last word.

 

That does not mean they were right.

There are all sorts of logical fallacies that can result in majorities of people coming to the wrong decision in certain types of situations.

I am not saying these men were "totally innocent", but the jury seemed to be releasing its full wraith finding them guilty of all counts.

Never mind that the victim charged at one of them and left him no choice.

 

Looks like aggravated assault and false imprisonment

 

No

Why aggravated assault? Where was the assault, before Arbery charged at one of the men, trying to grab his gun?

False imprisonment requires that they actually reach a point of physically beginning to take the individual into custody. That had not happened yet.
(They were merely chasing him and cut off his path in the street)


And we all know it's not like they had absolutely no reason whatsoever to do what they did...
(even if their actions may not have been entirely overall justified)

 

They were totally stupid. I can understand wanting to talk to Arbury but they didn't need guns to talk.

 

As stupid as what Arbery did?

 

Maybe these three should be invited to Mira Lago to grab a photo op with Trump too.

 

He was a Black man chased by three Rednecks with guns. Realistically I don't see how he could have not thought he was fighting for his life. Turns out he was. I haven't followed this trial but was there video of the shooting?

 

I would not go that far.

 

And that's what this verdict is mainly about, many suspect.

As far as I'm concerned, he chose to die.

If they had wanted to shoot him or run him over, they could have easily already done so. No, what Arbery was afraid of was sticking around waiting for the police to show up.

 

Why, these ones were guilty.

 

Jogging through a neighborhood and being hunted down and killed by three nosey, ignorant, hateful crackers. I guess you are right, it’s Arbury’s fault.....In the good old days they would have held a parade for these three upstanding citizens with Arbury’s tarred and feathered body being dragged behind their pickup truck leading the pack...

 

He was only shot after he charged a man with a gun.

Have you seen the video of this?

He had the body of a football linebacker, and was attempting to ambush him from around the corner of the high truck suddenly and unexpectedly by surprise.

Arbery was not shot from a distance but was close enough to put his hand on the gun when he was shot. Arbery had ran towards the man who shot him.

To me it almost looked like he was going to head-butt or ram him.

 

The jury found the three guilty and that's the end of it. The two McMichaels and William Bryan have to be punished for the crime that was committed and that's that. No ifs, buts, or maybes. The jury has spoken period.

 

What reasons did they have?

He'd walked through an open construction site?

 

Arbury was acting in self defense. He was chased down by three obvious racist, redneck scumbags. McMichael’s dad threatened to “Blow his fvckingbhead off”. The other scumbag blocked off Arburys escape route. What was he supposed to do? Run away and get shot in the back? He was on public property and had every right to be there. None of those scumbags had any right to chase him down and stop him. The fact that you defend these 3 a$$holes is very troubling.

 

And if Arbery had been successful in getting the weapon from his attackers and turned it on them, THAT would have been self defense.

 

His chances of being successful were very low.

If after grabbing the gun he had shot at them, wouldn't that kind of prove that that man would have been right to shoot at him?

 

Is it self defense when his expected chances of success were totally unrealistic?

It seems like the only way his "self defense" plan could have succeeded is if those other men decided not to shoot him.
Which in that case would negate the self defense claim, because then it could not be claimed that he felt his life was in danger.

 

Even if he was acting in self defense, that would not automatically mean the other man did not have a right to exercise self defense in response.

It is a logical error to believe that only one side can ever have the right to self defense.

 

And that's what this trial is actually mostly about, isn't it?