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

You keep trying to excuse murder threats. And when challenged to justify your unhinged views, you claim that you are "wasting your time." I agree. Seeing as you can't justify these murder threats, it is a waste of time for you to continue justifying these murder threats.

 

No I don't. I'm just saying that doesn't take away the right of someone else to use self defense.

 

There is no such thing as a "right to self defense" when the person you are attacking is the one that YOU have initiated criminal violence against. Travis pointed a gun at his face. This was before he "charged" anyone.

 

Think about it this way. If three police officers start chasing after you, and the first one to catch up to you makes an illegal threat to you, and then you attack another of the three officers, potentially putting their life in danger, who then shoots you, should all three of those officers be criminally charged as a result of one of them shooting you, after you attacked him?

I think your logic is absurd on this one.

 

If all three officers are illegally chasing me, one of them points a gun at my face, and I defend myself against his illegal threat, then I am in the right. If the other two (both of which have already illegally threatened me) participated, then they are guilty of felonies. They are the attackers. I'm only defending myself against violent criminal attackers. To claim otherwise is beyond absurd. You are literally arguing that the victims of violent crime have fewer rights than violent criminals do.

 

It was understandable. He had ran towards the truck and was practically right up against the raised truck where it was difficult for them to maintain a line of sight. He was pointing the gun both to try to intimidate the suspect to get away from the truck, and to be prepared at a moment's notice in case the suspect tried anything, since these situations can change very fast.

I don't view that as entirely un-understandable, given the exact details and circumstances of that situation.

Arberry knew they were not shooting at him even though they could have, so he could not have had justifiable reason to interpret that as a direct threat to his life.
Maybe he might have assumed that they were threatening to shoot him if he did not stop, but he did not have so much of a reason to assume they would kill him if he did stop. And why do you think Arberry might have thought they wanted him to stop?
One has to assume he knew they wanted to keep him in the area for police. He attacked a man because he did not want to wait around for police.

 

But you would agree that if they did have good reason to chase your stupid butt, they should not be punished if they riddled your body full of bullet holes, correct?

 

If they had a LEGAL reason to arrest him, then yes, I agree it would be legal if they shot when the guy grabbed their gun.

 

Um, no, I said if they had legal reason to chase him.

They might not have had legal reason to arrest him, but police likely would have had legal reason to stop him... and possibly temporarily detain by force if he did not stop.

However, I will concede that if police did not have the right to stop him, then these men did not have a right to chase him in the manner they did.
However, it's still not an entirely black/white yes/no type of thing.
Even if you convince me they should not have initiated the chase, that still does not mean they had absolutely no reason whatsoever to. In which case their punishment should be far less.

The law in Georgia is unfair in that it does not recognize there are forms of "murder", which fall into the legal definition of first degree, which are nevertheless far less severe than ordinary murder, with numerous mitigating factors.

I am still definitely not conceding that it fell into the category of murder under the definition of the law, but just saying that even if it did, there is still good reason they should not be convicted under it.

 

When the shooting happened, it was no longer a "chase."

Not likely. The police can't arrest you just for running. Again: he was not actually suspected of any specific crime.

Georgia law says they had no right.

The hell it isn't.

They had absolutely no reason whatsoever to chase him down. They had absolutely no reason to block his escape and (in their own words) "trap him like a rat." The father had absolutely no reason to threaten to "blow his ****ing head off." Travis had absolutely no reason to point a shotgun at his head.

Their murder victim had every reason to continue running. He had every reason to resist their crimes against him.

Georgia law absolutely does recognize that there are forms of murder.

 

Yeah, but the shooting did not happen until Arbery ran at one of them suddenly from around a corner in an attempt to carry out an ambush.

The shooting was totally justified. He was not even shot until he was two or three feet away from the other man. By one account he had already begun to yank on the gun.

If you watch the video, it looks like Arbery ran at and towards him with great speed. And Arbery was a big guy with a body build like a professional boxer or football linebacker. It almost looked like Arbery was trying to ram him or head-butt him and knock him down on the pavement.
The man who shot him didn't have much reaction time.

 

It will go to appeal.

It it was like voting for Obama hoping to chill out the blacks. End result, butkus. Racial justice never lives up to its promises. Trump delivered jobs. That’s all they really wanted.

 

Only to a criminal.

If they wanted him to get away from the truck, why did they block his path with their truck. That's probably the dumbest argument you made. And when he circled around the truck, Travis was still trying to point the gun at him. If all Travis wanted to do was to get Arbery away from his truck, then he could have moved his truck. Or just let him keep running. You are just making **** up now. And, no, Arbery was not "practically right up against" the truck when Travis raised his gun at him.

Then you haven't reviewed the facts.

Why do you repeatedly insist on misspelling his name?

I take it back. THIS is the dumbest argument you have made so far. One verbally threatened to shoot him. Another POINTED A ****ING GUN AT HIM. If you are going to say that you have no justifiable reason to interpret "I'll blow your ****ing head off" and POINTING A ****ING GUN AT SOMEONE as a DIRECT THREAT TO HIS LIFE, then I can only assume you aren't even trying to be honest anymore.

So your solution is that he should have just obeyed the illegal commands of the felons pursuing him, had threatened to shoot him, and pointed a gun at him, because, hey, maybe they won't actually do it? Are you deliberately trying to just squeeze in the worst possible arguments ever?

Your continued refusal to spell his name right is starting to indicate your complete disregard for this man and his life.

Possible. Which was criminal for them to try to enforce.

My wife is a runner. If two trucks start following her, one person threatens to blow her head off, and another "traps her like a rat" and points a gun at her face, then no, I don't think she necessarily should just assume they have good ****ing intentions. You know how much horse **** that is.

Bull, ****ing, ****, and you know it. No, he had no reason the think that is what they wanted. He had every reason to think they were threatening his life BECAUSE THEY ****ING WERE, and IT WAS A FELONY FOR THEM TO DO WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED. He was chased by violent felons. There is no evidence he had committed a crime himself. He tried to defend himself against a violent felon thug. The violent felon thug murdered him for it.

 

In self defense.

Arbery had every right to grab the gun.

So it wasn't reasonable for Arbery to think that a man pointing a gun at his fact meant him harm. But the guy pointing a gun at his face, illegally, had reasonable fear for his life when his victim tried to push away the gun that was illegally being pointed at him.

I sincerely believe that no soul on this planet is dumb enough to actually believe that.

 

Well, it does start to get complicated there.
That's why I said this is sort of a grey zone and some of the things that each side did were understandable, even if in retrospect it was a mistake.

 

Does "reasonable fear for your life" justify doing something that will probably put your life in even far more danger?

 

I think it is political issue.
People have got tired from the crimes sponsored by Democrat party.
Actually Democrat party is 100% responsible for the death of Ahmad Arbery

 

Was that when Arbery was running towards or around the base of the truck, and they had difficultly getting a clear line of sight because the truck was high raised which obscured their field of view?

Or was that when Arbery was trying to very suddenly and unexpectedly ambush and take their gun?

 

Like you've been repeatedly told, that still doesn't mean they didn't have a right to shoot him when he did that.

You seem to believe that Arbery having a right to grab the gun automatically means they did not have the right to shoot him for doing that.

When discussing "rights", we need to specify exactly what sort of right.

 

I would disagree with that.

His actions he took were far more likely to result in his own death. Anyone could have seen that.

Self defense usually implies you are doing something to protect your life.