A 25-year-old black man was shot dead in Georgia while jogging, prompting online protests labeling t

They didn't know if this burglary suspect might have a gun.

Plus, this wasn't a little weakling they were chasing. He might have turned around and attacked one of them.
Could have been the whole Trayvon on Zimmerman thing all over again.

 

The had a reasonable belief he was armed and would threaten them with a weapon. Do you think it reasonable for someone to charge someone holding a shotgun at least 12' away from you if you fear they will use it? His fear was the police showing up and arresting him.

 

Are you arguing they should have been carrying a tranquilizer gun like they were out on a safari?

 

You edited my post.
Here is the part that you conveniently cut out. I suppose it was too difficult for you to deal with this:

“They had lots of options. Starting with - don't follow the guy in the first place. If they follow, don't confront. If they confront him, stay in the car (roll down the window). If they get out of the car, stay far enough away to be able to retreat to the car if he tries to engage them. In any event, exit the car without their weapons.

They chose just about the most aggressive option available - one that made it reasonable for him to fear for his life. I've read another 2A poster on this forum who says that if you are confronted with a weapon, you should run away from a knife and towards a gun.”

One of the options was not to follow the guy at all. There were lots of options that would have been less aggressive than what they did.
You haven’t answered my question - in the circumstances was it reasonable for him to fear for his life?

 

you have no evidence of burglary, and neither did McMicahaels. Which is why their attempted detention of Arbery was illegal. GA law requires a citizen to witness the crime first hand.

 

That’s completely disingenuous. You edited my post to imply that I said “lots of options” but failed to identify any. I certainly did identify other options:

“They had lots of options. Starting with - don't follow the guy in the first place. If they follow, don't confront. If they confront him, stay in the car (roll down the window). If they get out of the car, stay far enough away to be able to retreat to the car if he tries to engage them. In any event, exit the car without their weapons.

They chose just about the most aggressive option available - one that made it reasonable for him to fear for his life. I've read another 2A poster on this forum who says that if you are confronted with a weapon, you should run away from a knife and towards a gun.”

 

in order to do so................................

You have a separate video that shows they had the authority to detain Arbery? Because the video we have plus the statements from McMichaels confirms they did not. It’s why they are in jail charged with murder and aggravated assault.

 

of course you can. Nobody is stopping you from making hilariously moronic claims. I'm just giving you a chance to retract said moronic claim. Or I'll keep giving you all the rope you need.

 

I left nothing out.

The law is crystal clear in GA. We have video of the illegal attempted detention, and the statement from the shooter himself confirming the detention was illegal.

 

Point of order you have left out the felony prong the of CA statute that doesn't require the crime be in their immediate presence.

Which is not to say that McMichaels acted rightly, or had the reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion of the commission of a felony by arbery necessary to shelter under the CA statute's felony prong.

 

And your criminal had many options as well. Like moving in 3 other major directions and not attacking them. Funny how you leave that fact out every time.

 

it doesn't apply here, as no felony was committed.

I agree. Had that portion of the statute been relevant, I would have quoted it.

 

He had no other option. His path was blocked by a vehicle, and an armed man on foot demanding he stop. He did not attack anyone. He defended himself from 2 armed men attempting to illegally detain him, which he had the absolute right to do.

 

I really do not need more rope as I have this tied up in a neat little package of truth any way.

 

Georgia has a stand your ground law. 1) he's not required to retreat to use force 2) by their own admission he already had attempted to retreat and they chased him down again so even though he's not required to retreat he already had once

 

1) The stand your ground law works both ways.

2)Open carry is also legal in Georgia.

3)Neither man raised their weapon towards the criminal or approached him in any way. He ran towards them.

4)The criminal attacked not the ex cop

5) You can't chase a man who is running towards you. Read the dictionary

 

What facts would that

How exactly does such a position differ from that of the McMichael's and their belief that their actions were justified, based on nothing more than the facts they had at the time? How exactly would your belief legally be regarded as better, or anymore correct?



Was the firearm visible or alluded to in such a hypothetical scenario?[/QUOTE]

How many of those officers went to jail?

 

What evidence shows what was being said when Travis exits the vehicle with shotgun in hand?

 

You are making our point and don't even realize it.

 

1) But only if you can claim self defense. As the initial aggressor the only way mcmichaels can claim SD under these facts is by sheltering under the CA statute.

2) So what? Chasing someone down armed is still an aggravating factor to your assault. When you commit a crime armed, you get commission of x crime, armed or aggravated.

3) Again by their own admission they had already 1) chased him down once 2) attempted to box him in and hold him at bay 3) he had escaped 4) they renewed the chase 5) they attempted to box him in again (this is their own admissions in the police report) 6) which is where you see the video pick up.

4) The chase entire, if not sheltered under the CA statute, constitutes a continuing attack by the McMichaels. For reasons already discussed upthread they cannot shelter under the CA statute.

5) You can chase a man, pull ahead of him, and attempt to block his path however, which is what the video shows. Particularly when paired with the McMichaels own admissions against interest in the police report (and on tape since there was body cam footage of these admissions according to the report), what happened is exactly as I described. They start the encounter by giving chase and in their own words attempting to box him in and seize him of his liberty.

 

So you think the video was staged and that Arbery is still alive.

 

That is your strawman.

 

that's the only way for this to be a hoax. Perhaps you can explain exactly how this qualifies as a hoax? We have video evidence of an illegal attempted detention of Arbery, while firearms are brandished. We have direct statement by McMichaels stating they were attempting to detain Arbery, illegally. Arbery is dead.

Which of those objective facts do you claim is fake?

 

What's they evidence they verbally threatened to kill him?

 

That's not what the law says. And for a felony to exist that turns trespassing into burglary you have to have some knowledge of intent, like he was in possession of something. Just playing a "what if" game is insufficient.