You can tell when Republicans are gaining political ground because the news cycle always shifts back to White Men Bad. The racebaiters know this case is a lost cause, but they demanded arrests so they can cry about "institutional racism" when the shooters are acquitted.
Either way they are just going to be complaining about southern murder laws that let you kill anyone who scares you! Damn that violent south and their... incredibly low murder rate?
I genuinely thought this would be one of those grey areas. I've been telling family and friends that this whole surveillance camera in the construction site is meaningless. Unless the guy who shot him was in fear for his life or his son's life he should be charged with manslaughter or murder or w/e it would be in the eyes of the law. This is straight up self defense. I mean, you can clearly see him trying to take the mans gun from him while punching him the face. What the fuck was he supposed to do? Hand it over and eat his own lead?
Yes, these two men should expect to be shot if they bum-rush someone who is brandishing a firearm and try to take away said firearm. In your example, he would only be able to conclude that they intend to use it on him once they obtain it. A non-threat would not have engaged someone with a firearm.
When I took my CCW class in NC, they made it very clear that unholstering my gun without cause was considered assault and would legally make me the aggressor, so I had better have reasonable cause to think my life was being threatened before even unholsterimg my gun.
Idk Georgia law or enough about the details of the situation, but if their fear wasn't reasonable, then legally they maybe shouldn't have been carrying their firearms the way they were. I think they were correct but there is legal standing for assault and manslaughter if they didn't follow the law. Knowing the law is important for gunowners.
The catch is this: the citizens arrest was only legal if he was committing a felony. If someone had just seen you smoking a joint in an alley, then started trying to stop you, and they were carrying a shotgun, would you try and stop them? Would you trust that they were a good person and werent just going to shoot you? Or would you decide to fight them because you think theyre going to shoot you after setting up in the road in front of you with a gun? Because if they can only prove he committed a misdemeanor, thats the exact same thing.
Just food for thought. Until more of the evidence comes out, Im not going to pick a side. Its clear he at least committed a misdemeanor by trespassing, but that doesnt make a citizens arrest legal in georgia. If they can prove he was burglarizing houses, then their attempted citizens arrest, and subsequent self defense is legal. If they can only show he trespassed, then its not legal, and they become guilty of involuntary manslaughter most likely. I know everyone here doesnt want to hear that because everyones mind is already made up on this case though. Theres no denying ahmaud was a criminal, the only thing up for debate is was the citizens arrest legal, and none of us have the information necessary to decide that. And to anyone saying the shooter wasnt brandishing, you absolutely cannot see what hes doing in the video even frame by frame, believe me, Ive tried. Hes just too blurry.
This is the central point. At what point did this become brandishing, did the circumstances support it (was the hammer in Arbery's hand?) Then you have a reasonable fear of injury/death. The discharge happened during the struggle for the gun. At best, 2nd or 3rd degree. These guys didn't reasonably wake up and plan on gunning down some black guy.
All of the idiot people think he was justified in trying to take the guy's shotgun because they were blocking the road. Then that whole argument got blown up when the Black Panthers showed up there and stood in the road with guns. Nobody thinks you can run up to them and try to take their gun without getting shot.
This video ends this case, these two men are innocent and justified. Nobody can watch this video and come to any other conclusion if they have more than two active brain cells.
But as you see reefacts, if he had gotten it he would have been a moral upstanding citizen and disintegrated the weapon in accordance with the green new deal scriptures. He wouldn't have done anything malicious. Just like how he was justifiably trespassing on others property, for the good of society
If you roll up in truck, block my path, shout at me, and brandish firearms, I will absolutely assume you intend to hurt me. If I’m armed, I’m gonna try by best to shoot you first. If I’m not, I’m gonna try to wrestle the gun away from you.
Been watching this video a bit, just to see if I can see something that I might have missed from the first time I saw it.
This is what I see, now that I watched it more closely and what I think people are going to be arguing in court.
When the video starts, you can see that the truck with two men has went past jogger and is stopped in the road, and the driver is out in the road on the drivers side with shotgun. You can't really see his disposition, or stance if you will.
Jogger is approaching them still almost walking, then slowly running forward, notice, the hammer can be seen laying in the road, not shown how it got there though, as it is behind the jogger at this point and you can't make out any motion from him that he dropped it or lost it, but its roughly beside when you first can see him in the video.
Jogger slowly increases his speed towards the drivers side of the truck, where the shotgun man is standing. Unfortunately, the camera swerves to the side at this point so you lose a moment of what is going on.
As camera comes back, you can see the jogger go from his path towards the drivers side and shotgun man, to going around the passenger side and speeds up a bit. You can't see what shotgun man is doing at this point.
As he rounds the passenger side, rather than sprinting past and straight down the road or turning farther right towards the grassy area, he cuts back towards shotgun man around the front of the truck, more or less straight at shotgun man.
When you next see shotgun man, he is still roughly on the drivers side, but is in front of the truck and backing up, this is when you hear the first shot. You can see jogger has gotten close enough to have been at least reaching if not actually grabbing the gun, he is closing in fast.
When you next see jogger, he clearly has engaged in struggle to grab shotgun and has his hands on it, as shotgun man backs up.
What happens next, as far as it goes is not relevant to the point of the question "was this self defense". They struggle, more shots, and eventually jogger succumbs to his wounds and collapses.
Now that the summary is done, time to break it down a bit, from the perspective of what law enforcement might be thinking, and what lawyers might try to say in court.
Firstly in my opinion, the shooting was in self defense, the jogger clearly attacked and was aggressively trying to take the gun away, he could have done any number of things to avoid being shot, but choose to attack an armed man, and paid the price.
But as we all know there could be some things that could change what looks like obvious self defense, at least in the eyes of a jury, both in court and in the the jury of public opinion.
The biggest question I can see being asked, was shotgun man brandishing or pointing the gun while also communicating any type of intent? You can't really hear what is being said, and you can't really see what shotgun mans disposition is as far as pointing or gestures with the shotgun.
I had not seen the hammer laying in the street before now either, so that might have some bearing on things too. if he did toss it, he was not going to use it as a weapon, its more like he didn't want to be caught 'red handed".
And then there will be the questions about what was the intent of the truck men and the way they chased and "cut him off", and "allegedly" brandished weapons and threatened the jogger.
Either way, I am sure this is Zimmerman 2.0 and you won't get anything but spin for the next year as this works it way to trial.
There is also the bit about what happened right before the video. Did they chase him up and down the street? I have read that they chased him one way. then they turned around and chased him the other way, before parking and getting out. If someone chased me like that and had a gun, I might assume they dont plan on giving up and my only option is to fight. What also matters is if they can prove that he committed a felony before all this took place. Criminal trespassing in georgia is a misdemeanor, and citizens arrest is only legal if a felony was committed and they witnessed it or have immediate knowledge of the crime. If they chased him around with a gun, leading to what happened on the video, and they werent legally allowed to citizens arrest him, there may be an argument that it was self defense on his part.
Very good points here. the jogger, from what I have seen, was prowling and possibly stealing, and also, from what I have read, was known to have been there prowling in the past, so he could have avoided being killed by not prowling and trespassing.
On the other hand, the men in the truck could have avoided this ending as well, by either staying farther way, and keeping their guns stowed away, only to be used if absolutely needed, or just not pursuing as aggressively, just following as best as they can and keeping police updated on the location of the jogger.
One thing is for certain, let this be a lesson to anyone who has a gun and see's a situation like this transpiring, try and keep your cool, and think ahead cause things can get out of hand really fast and you could find yourself being the one accused of murder.
Like I said in another comment. If you have a gun, there is almost no reason ever that you should chase someone down who is already fleeing and is not an immediate threat to you unless you think there is a real possibility they are about to hurt someone else. Legally speaking, youre just asking for a LOT of trouble. Its not worth whatever they stole or broke and if it turns out theyre also armed, you might just die if they get a lucky shot. Or even if theyre not armed, you can see in the video of this how quick a person can be on top of you and have your gun in their hands. Hes damn lucky to be alive, even if hes in jail.
You can tell when Republicans are gaining political ground because the news cycle always shifts back to White Men Bad. The racebaiters know this case is a lost cause, but they demanded arrests so they can cry about "institutional racism" when the shooters are acquitted.
Either way they are just going to be complaining about southern murder laws that let you kill anyone who scares you! Damn that violent south and their... incredibly low murder rate?
I genuinely thought this would be one of those grey areas. I've been telling family and friends that this whole surveillance camera in the construction site is meaningless. Unless the guy who shot him was in fear for his life or his son's life he should be charged with manslaughter or murder or w/e it would be in the eyes of the law. This is straight up self defense. I mean, you can clearly see him trying to take the mans gun from him while punching him the face. What the fuck was he supposed to do? Hand it over and eat his own lead?
I can't tell if you're being serious or not.
Oh wow...you're actually serious.
Yes, these two men should expect to be shot if they bum-rush someone who is brandishing a firearm and try to take away said firearm. In your example, he would only be able to conclude that they intend to use it on him once they obtain it. A non-threat would not have engaged someone with a firearm.
When I took my CCW class in NC, they made it very clear that unholstering my gun without cause was considered assault and would legally make me the aggressor, so I had better have reasonable cause to think my life was being threatened before even unholsterimg my gun.
Idk Georgia law or enough about the details of the situation, but if their fear wasn't reasonable, then legally they maybe shouldn't have been carrying their firearms the way they were. I think they were correct but there is legal standing for assault and manslaughter if they didn't follow the law. Knowing the law is important for gunowners.
Excellent red herring my friend.
So, I'm "setting up weird legal ground not supported" yet you've introduced the premise of criminal charges cancelling each other out?
The catch is this: the citizens arrest was only legal if he was committing a felony. If someone had just seen you smoking a joint in an alley, then started trying to stop you, and they were carrying a shotgun, would you try and stop them? Would you trust that they were a good person and werent just going to shoot you? Or would you decide to fight them because you think theyre going to shoot you after setting up in the road in front of you with a gun? Because if they can only prove he committed a misdemeanor, thats the exact same thing.
Just food for thought. Until more of the evidence comes out, Im not going to pick a side. Its clear he at least committed a misdemeanor by trespassing, but that doesnt make a citizens arrest legal in georgia. If they can prove he was burglarizing houses, then their attempted citizens arrest, and subsequent self defense is legal. If they can only show he trespassed, then its not legal, and they become guilty of involuntary manslaughter most likely. I know everyone here doesnt want to hear that because everyones mind is already made up on this case though. Theres no denying ahmaud was a criminal, the only thing up for debate is was the citizens arrest legal, and none of us have the information necessary to decide that. And to anyone saying the shooter wasnt brandishing, you absolutely cannot see what hes doing in the video even frame by frame, believe me, Ive tried. Hes just too blurry.
This is the central point. At what point did this become brandishing, did the circumstances support it (was the hammer in Arbery's hand?) Then you have a reasonable fear of injury/death. The discharge happened during the struggle for the gun. At best, 2nd or 3rd degree. These guys didn't reasonably wake up and plan on gunning down some black guy.
All of the idiot people think he was justified in trying to take the guy's shotgun because they were blocking the road. Then that whole argument got blown up when the Black Panthers showed up there and stood in the road with guns. Nobody thinks you can run up to them and try to take their gun without getting shot.
I think this is important the guy holding the shotgun didn't start the physical struggle for the shotgun it must have been Arbery.
Best argument I've seen.
Also, somebody please slap whoever was filming this. Thanks.
"It is totally normal for black people to do a little trespassing and even assault while out jogging." - the racists
"Black people are better than that, and should be held to a higher standard." - the non-racists
This video ends this case, these two men are innocent and justified. Nobody can watch this video and come to any other conclusion if they have more than two active brain cells.
But as you see reefacts, if he had gotten it he would have been a moral upstanding citizen and disintegrated the weapon in accordance with the green new deal scriptures. He wouldn't have done anything malicious. Just like how he was justifiably trespassing on others property, for the good of society
If you roll up in truck, block my path, shout at me, and brandish firearms, I will absolutely assume you intend to hurt me. If I’m armed, I’m gonna try by best to shoot you first. If I’m not, I’m gonna try to wrestle the gun away from you.
Life is about choices indeed.
Been watching this video a bit, just to see if I can see something that I might have missed from the first time I saw it.
This is what I see, now that I watched it more closely and what I think people are going to be arguing in court.
When the video starts, you can see that the truck with two men has went past jogger and is stopped in the road, and the driver is out in the road on the drivers side with shotgun. You can't really see his disposition, or stance if you will.
Jogger is approaching them still almost walking, then slowly running forward, notice, the hammer can be seen laying in the road, not shown how it got there though, as it is behind the jogger at this point and you can't make out any motion from him that he dropped it or lost it, but its roughly beside when you first can see him in the video.
Jogger slowly increases his speed towards the drivers side of the truck, where the shotgun man is standing. Unfortunately, the camera swerves to the side at this point so you lose a moment of what is going on.
As camera comes back, you can see the jogger go from his path towards the drivers side and shotgun man, to going around the passenger side and speeds up a bit. You can't see what shotgun man is doing at this point.
As he rounds the passenger side, rather than sprinting past and straight down the road or turning farther right towards the grassy area, he cuts back towards shotgun man around the front of the truck, more or less straight at shotgun man.
When you next see shotgun man, he is still roughly on the drivers side, but is in front of the truck and backing up, this is when you hear the first shot. You can see jogger has gotten close enough to have been at least reaching if not actually grabbing the gun, he is closing in fast.
When you next see jogger, he clearly has engaged in struggle to grab shotgun and has his hands on it, as shotgun man backs up.
What happens next, as far as it goes is not relevant to the point of the question "was this self defense". They struggle, more shots, and eventually jogger succumbs to his wounds and collapses.
Getting a bit long, so will continue below.
Now that the summary is done, time to break it down a bit, from the perspective of what law enforcement might be thinking, and what lawyers might try to say in court.
Firstly in my opinion, the shooting was in self defense, the jogger clearly attacked and was aggressively trying to take the gun away, he could have done any number of things to avoid being shot, but choose to attack an armed man, and paid the price.
But as we all know there could be some things that could change what looks like obvious self defense, at least in the eyes of a jury, both in court and in the the jury of public opinion.
The biggest question I can see being asked, was shotgun man brandishing or pointing the gun while also communicating any type of intent? You can't really hear what is being said, and you can't really see what shotgun mans disposition is as far as pointing or gestures with the shotgun.
I had not seen the hammer laying in the street before now either, so that might have some bearing on things too. if he did toss it, he was not going to use it as a weapon, its more like he didn't want to be caught 'red handed".
And then there will be the questions about what was the intent of the truck men and the way they chased and "cut him off", and "allegedly" brandished weapons and threatened the jogger.
Either way, I am sure this is Zimmerman 2.0 and you won't get anything but spin for the next year as this works it way to trial.
There is also the bit about what happened right before the video. Did they chase him up and down the street? I have read that they chased him one way. then they turned around and chased him the other way, before parking and getting out. If someone chased me like that and had a gun, I might assume they dont plan on giving up and my only option is to fight. What also matters is if they can prove that he committed a felony before all this took place. Criminal trespassing in georgia is a misdemeanor, and citizens arrest is only legal if a felony was committed and they witnessed it or have immediate knowledge of the crime. If they chased him around with a gun, leading to what happened on the video, and they werent legally allowed to citizens arrest him, there may be an argument that it was self defense on his part.
Very good points here. the jogger, from what I have seen, was prowling and possibly stealing, and also, from what I have read, was known to have been there prowling in the past, so he could have avoided being killed by not prowling and trespassing.
On the other hand, the men in the truck could have avoided this ending as well, by either staying farther way, and keeping their guns stowed away, only to be used if absolutely needed, or just not pursuing as aggressively, just following as best as they can and keeping police updated on the location of the jogger.
One thing is for certain, let this be a lesson to anyone who has a gun and see's a situation like this transpiring, try and keep your cool, and think ahead cause things can get out of hand really fast and you could find yourself being the one accused of murder.
Like I said in another comment. If you have a gun, there is almost no reason ever that you should chase someone down who is already fleeing and is not an immediate threat to you unless you think there is a real possibility they are about to hurt someone else. Legally speaking, youre just asking for a LOT of trouble. Its not worth whatever they stole or broke and if it turns out theyre also armed, you might just die if they get a lucky shot. Or even if theyre not armed, you can see in the video of this how quick a person can be on top of you and have your gun in their hands. Hes damn lucky to be alive, even if hes in jail.
Interesting, thanks.