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

You're right. In the very least, 2 of them do not deserve to see sunlight again.

 

Maybe because they didn't view it as a murder???

Oh, I forgot, you can't see that...

 

The "victim" was only shot after he punched the guy in the face. Then he did it again and was shot. And then once again he did it and was shot a third time.
(This is a guy who almost had the body build of a professional boxer, mind you)

But people like you call that murder, apparently.

Sure, you can lay some blame on those guys for creating the situation, but this was totally not a murder.

 

Justice was done....

 

Nope. He was illegally chased. He was illegally boxed in. He was illegally threatened. Then one of the guys pointed a gun at him. He tried to escape their illegal actions. When he could no longer escape, he tried to defend himself. He was shot before he ever even made physical contact with the violent criminals pursuing him.

Yep, that's what rational folks do.

 

But it wasn't quite the normal situation of being illegally threatened, so I don't think the usual logic in "those type of situations" totally applies.

Sorry, we've already discussed this. The gun wasn't pointed at him for no reason.
It's a little bit more complicated that you seem to try to be making it out to be.

 

He was illegally threatened. The law applies. The fact that you are offended at the law being applied says everything we need to know.

 

You are correct. The gun was pointed at him for criminal reasons.

 

You know very well that is totally a disingenuous statement.

Go look at the exact situation and see why the gun was pointed at him at that moment in time.

 

You know very well it is a genuine statement. There was no legal justification for pointing a gun at him. As you well know.

 

I feel this is probably yet another disingenuous statement from you, because in your mind this will all go back to the reason for chasing him in the first place.

If we ignore why they were chasing him in the first place, if we hypothetically ignore that aspect totally, could you admit that then there would have been legitimate reason for the gun to be pointed at him? He was running around very close to the truck and sort of running towards them and there was not very good visibility. It wasn't like they pointed the gun at him while there was plenty of distance between them and he was stopped or running away.

 

It was illegal to chase him in the first place. Yes, it does all go back to that. But you should try watching the video. Travis pointed a gun at him before he "ran at" anyone. They boxed him in and (in the words of the murderers) trapped him "like a rat." They pointed a gun at him while he was still trying to escape. Which was his legal right -- something you selectively admit. One minute you say he had a right to escape, the next you say he doesn't. You never could make up your mind.

 

I think that's where your logic runs into some problems. Because even if they may not have been entirely legally justified to start the chase, they did sort of have some reason to chase him.

It wasn't just the normal 100% criminal act like a bank robbery or normal kidnapping would be.

You seem to be making sweeping generalizations and viewing this in terms of black & white.

You can't do that when one thing hinges on another in a complex situation like this.

 

The law only cares about if they had a legal reason to chase him. They did not. It was illegal for them to chase him. What part of this are you haven't difficulty understanding? It was CRIMINAL for them to chase him.

. . . there are laws governing when it is okay to chase someone and when it isn't. Why are you offended by this fact?

 

I personally think they were legally justified to chase him, including with guns. What gets into a more questionable grey zone area is cutting his path off in the road with the car.

 

If police would have had a right to stop him, then it would not have been illegal for them to chase him. That is my view. Since they wanted to keep an eye on his physical location until police could arrive.

Of course this comes down entirely to level of suspicion and exactly what that level of suspicion should justify.

And even if what they did was technically unjustified, I think they could partially be forgiven for making a mistake. The suspect was running. They automatically assumed that implied guilt.

 

They had no legal justification for their actions. Please consult the law instead of just your imagination.

 

Your view and the law are diametrically opposed. Their actions were illegal. Period. Please try reading the law instead of just making **** up.

 

No, it doesn't. "Level of suspicion" doesn't factor into the law. Please read the law.

 

I don't think it's fair to necessarily interpret the wording of the law literally here.

That may have been an error that the jury made.

The law obviously wasn't "meant" to apply in this specific situation. (Did lawmakers actually think about this specific sort of situation when they passed that law? I really don't think so. Because several different laws are applying in conjunction with each other)

 

Your argument is that the jury erred . . . by relying on the law? That explains a lot.

 

It wasn't a law. Multiple laws were pieced together.

For example, the definition of "felony". And then that applying in another situation with another law to determine whether self defense would apply.

 

You are literally arguing that these guys are innocent . . . if we IGNORE THE ****ING LAW. You have literally argued that the jury erred BY OBEYING THE LAW. Your entire argument is bull ****. No one can agree with your argument without ignoring the law, by your own admission.

 

I believe both the exact wording of the law, and your reasoning, may be committing an equivocation fallacy.

That's where you equivocate two different things together that are not exactly the same, by using the same word.

 

Then you don't understand what "equivocation fallacy" means. Would you like a tutorial? It's a really bad excuse for defending felonies, which is what you are doing. By your own admission. Falsely claiming that THE LAW ITSELF IS AN EQUIVOCATION FALLACY is absolutely ****ing brain dead.