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

For the sake of argument, what I want to know is, if the Arbery killers thought, however incorrectly, that Arbery had committed a serious felony (which they appear to confess they did not... yet) would they have been convicted of murder? I ask in part as Grosskreutz pointed a gun at Rittenhouse(assault with a deadly weapon). If proven that Rittenhouse was innocent (more than just not guilty at his own trial) would Grosskreutz be in trouble? Would he be OK regardless as he thought Rittenhouse engaged in serious felony, even if wrong?

 

and it seems foolish to speculate.......and that only emphasizes the race card....... which still is a big problem in this country.


Will this result be a litmus test of things to come?? Can't predict as each case has to be seen and evaluate on its own merit...........

 

I think there may likely have been a lot of anti-gun and "anti-racism" bias in this case.

In the parallel case of Rittenhouse, one of the attackers also had a gun and was pointing it, and the other was attacking him with a skateboard like a weapon, so the anti-gun bias cancelled out and the attacker-victims didn't get as much sympathy from the jury.

 

Another element to this, something that is not talked about as much, many former inner city blacks have been pushed out into the suburbs and other cheap third-tier cities by the large population increases caused by foreign immigration. This is pushing "ghetto-style" blacks into the suburbs in places they have never traditionally been. And there is inevitably sometimes some conflict that comes with that, when burglaries happen, and then innocent black men jogging through neighborhoods in the middle of the day are seen with suspicion.

 

What would have been YOUR preferred outcome???

 

Only if you are prepared to argue that he had no legal right to leave.

 

Your fantasy is contradicted by the reality.

 

But not by logic, apparently.

 

I doubt they would have stopped him if he had just been walking at a normal pace along the main street. Probably would have just continued to trail him at a distance until police got there.

 

By logic as well. Please consult logic.

 

You are welcome to present this logic to us.

 

Irrelevant. See the previous post you fled from. I doubt they would have committed this crime if they had taken two seconds to think about it as well. Doesn't make their actions any less criminal.

 

Some states have shopkeepers privilege which allows them to detain suspects to recover goods, but if we use that analogy, what were these 3 men trying to recover? How did they know whether or not Arbery had permission to be in that house? The home owner said he had no connection to them.

 

I don't think it is totally irrelevant.

 

Already done. Multiple times.

 

I'll admit it wasn't the best analogy. Was just trying to illustrate a point.

I don't think my analogy was worse than his though.

 

that is just speculation........

 

I've added to other threads and forums. Briefly: had Arbery's killers thought, however incorrectly, that Arbery was engaged in a serious Felony, would they be in the clear? To my knowledge, they do not claim such a belief. That fellow that stuck a gun in Rittenhouse's face? Is he going to jail for assault with a deadly weapon or did his belief that Rittenhouse was engaged in a serious felony a shield to prosecution?

and not material. The guy had a right to be jogging along without them trapping him and shooting him.

Still, my question above. What if they genuinely thought Arbery engaged in criminality?

 

I think you ignore the point that was trying to be made.

 

They suspected him of likely being the neighborhood burglar, but had no adequate proof.
They just wanted to stop and talk to him, but he immediately started running away, so they were very suspicious and thought this was likely the burglar.

There would not have been evidence to arrest him, but I think they wanted police to stop and talk to him if he wouldn't talk to them.
Maybe he had a criminal record of burglary, for all they knew, which the police would be able to confirm.

 

agree, do not think Kyle would've fared as well if the people around had not chasséd a suspected active shooter - let the police handle it - you could get killed and give the defense a self-defense motive when they kill you too

 

I think the Right has very different views from the Left when it comes to this.

probably factored into the jury decision as well.

If police had done this, likely no one would be asking questions.

 

The kidnapping scenario is more appropriate considering they had no right to detain him. You can only perform a citizens arrest if you reasonably believe a person committed a felony. Would any reasonable person think trespassing on a construction site is a felony?

 

Let's look at the citizens arrest law of Georgia in effect at the time (it has since been repealed):

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

Whenever you see that word "reasonable" in a statute, it means that the conduct or suspicion is consistent with what a reasonable man would do. There is no such thing as a "reasonable man." It's just a standard. And juries are the ones who decide what is "reasonable" under the circumstances, assuming the defendant and the state can't agree. Apparently they didn't view these defendants as having had reasonable grounds to believe the victim had committed a felony or was trying to escape.

 

You are assuming that all right wingers and all police are braindead idiots. I don't share that dogma