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

The "wood chippers" were illegally chasing him.

They chased him. They pointed a gun at him. They threatened to kill him. They didn't just "place something in his path." You are still incapable of realizing that they were not inanimate objects, whereas a wood chipper is.

Two of them threatened to kill him. Arguably all three. One did so verbally. The others did so with their physical actions, both with deadly weapons.

Are you capable of understanding that pointing a gun at someone is a threat?

 

Maybe, but he did run towards them.

It's already been explained to you why they pointed a gun at him.

It is because of what he did. (He wasn't standing still or running away when that happened)

 

Violent felonies were committed against him. There's a reason you have to make fake arguments "lies," but can't actually defend them for their violent crimes.

 

In response to criminal threats of violence, in order to defend himself. Sure.

 

More than one was committed. This has already been explained to you. You have been incapable/unwilling to argue against these facts.

 

No, it was not "in order to defend", because there is virtually no possibility those actions could have defended himself or reduced personal risk to him.

 

There was virtually no possibility that the people threatening to kill him would have followed through on their threats? That's absolutely ****ing insane. No one on the planet is dumb enough to believe that. Why make it up?

 

Haven't we been over this?

Two of them had not threatened to kill him.

He didn't even run at the one who allegedly made the verbal threat and that was not the same guy who ended up shooting him.

 

Yes, we have. You remain as wrong as you were before. Would you like to go over it again? Last we checked in, you had made arguments that revealed that you don't know how guns work.

 

Please tell us what felony the man who shot Arbery committed before he shot Arbery?

Do you claim he had no right to defend himself due to crimes committed by others whom he was with?

That's not exactly what the law says...

 

It was a felony for him to pursue Arbery in the first place. He chased down a man, attempt to affect an illegal arrest (aka, attempted kidnapping), he threatened him with both his vehicle and his gun. All of these things are illegal. All of these things are criminal. Hence the criminal charges that both the jury and anyone capable of rubbing two brain cells together have found him guilty of.

 

I argue it was not.

Chasing someone with intent to commit a crime is not necessarily illegal if there was a conceivably legal reason to chase them.

Since the crime had not been committed yet, there is no actual felony that would have completely made them the ones to blame if self defense had to be used.

The alleged verbal threat only came from one of the men and still didn't really justify Arbery's response.

 

Then it is me and the law vs you. The law wins.

Chasing someone with intent to commit a crime is absolutely illegal. And, as we've already established, they had no legal reason to chase him.

They had already committed felonies and were in the commission of another one. It is, absolutely, legal to defend yourself against attempted kidnapping. The attempt, itself, is a felony, just like attempted murder is. According to your "logic," you can't legally defend yourself against attempted murder until after you are murdered. Do you understand how bat **** insane that is.

It wasn't "alleged." He admitted to the threat. And the other two men had already engaged in aggravated assault, attempted kidnapping, and one of them was pointing a gun at him. He had every right to defend himself against their felonies. They were the aggressors. They can't claim self defense.

 

It's by definition illegal to commit a crime, and so all actions that are part of something that is illegal are also illegal.

There was no legal reason to chase Arbery.

An intent to kidnap and imprisonment is most certainly a crime, and them 3 thugs committed it. The victim of people who break the law with their kidnapping and imprisonment actions has the right to defend himself.

Your reasoning is like. If I somebody is just busy with an armed robbery on your butt, it's not yet a crime until the robber gets some loot. While the right of defense happens when the robber has that loot. Your reasoning really is rather disturbed to the point that your just making up utter nonsense for the sake to claim you can just hunt down black people like grandpa used to do it in the late 1950's.

There was nothing alleged about it. One person yelled it, while all 3 were busy with the same crime of kidnapping and imprisoning. It was a team effort and that's how they got sentenced.

 

There was no need to complete the arrest in order to qualify as criminal. They were already committing a crime from the moment they even attempted to arrest Arbery, because there was no legal basis for doing so.

The same applies to countless crimes. Attempting a crime is in itself a crime.

 

Under what obligation was he obliged to talk to them? They could have called the police yes?

 

Also, @kazenatsu , you keep misrepresenting the facts, just like when you tried claiming he had a hammer. He was ALREADY running BEFORE they started chasing him. He went running frequently. Are you going to sit here and pretend that one of the most common athletic hobbies is, by default, cause for criminal suspicion?

 

And just another note: I watched the Travis cross examination. Turns out that there was no "string of burglaries" in the neighborhood. There had been a false alarm, where cops were called in but no actual burglary had occurred. There had been another, actual burglary . . . but the burglars had been caught on tape and arrested. Arbery was never a suspect. The owner of the home under construction had something stolen from his boat, but he couldn't even be sure where it happened, since he brought the boat to various properties. He had reviewed video from his property during the time window of this burglary, but Arbery wasn't on the footage and was never a suspect. In fact, the owner had flat-out told the McMichaels that the prime suspect was one of his sub-contractors, not Arbery. Then there was Travis's stolen gun. Someone had taken it from his unlocked truck. He went to his neighbor to review video from that day. Arbery wasn't on any of the videos and was never a suspect. All of this had taken place over the course of several months.

The so-called "string of burglaries"? Yeah, Travis admitted on the stand that he was just basing that on rumors he heard on Facebook and from his mom. And they never even claimed that they thought he was escaping from the scene of burglary, much less that they had reasonable cause to believe so -- and it would be illegal for them to chase him without that. In fact, the McMichaels testified that they were chasing him to find out who he was, where he was coming from, what he was doing (again, this is illegal), not because they had reasonable cause to believe he was fleeing from a felony. Not only that, but they testified that they could easily see THAT HE HAD NOTHING ON HIM, making it difficult to believe they thought he had just stolen something.

 

Arbury was murdered.

The issue is if the McMichaels were acting unlawfully at the time of contact arbury was not. He didn't have to stop he didn't have to talk to him he is allowed to run away. That's why the one was convicted in not sure about the other. The one that seems odd is the guy coming it in not sure if his involvement.

 

I'm not sure about that I'm considered Republican and I think the judgement was appropriate.

 

Two issues with that, because you are not exactly entirely correct. You need to get the details right and not make generalizations that are too big.
Technically, the legal question is if they were committing a felony, not whether they were merely acting unlawfully.
Second, you can't just automatically lump all three of them together. Because it could be very easy for you to make a logical fallacy that way. Suppose for example that only one of them had or was committing a felony, and another one genuinely acted in self defense later.

 

Not exactly true.

You can repeat this over and over again, but we've already talked about this.

 

You're accusing me of lies??
You know full well that no "violence" was committed against Arberry before he ran at one of them.

Using loaded words won't make you win the argument.

 

That's true. That doesn't mean the others are guilty.

He was allowed to run away, and they should have been allowed to follow him until police arrived.

 

the assault with a deadly weapon is absolutely a felony.

I think it's up to the defendants to petition for separate trials. I think they were advised to do that because they would likely get a lesser charge across the board that's a gamble but court proceedings can be

They should petition the court for separate trials.