25 year old man murdered in Georgia for jogging while black

What is my case? Tell me what you think my position is and stop dodging my question. Coward.

 

He knows more about the law than you.

 

Doesn't matter... carrying a gun is not illegal. Talking is not illegal. If this is all they did then they will be free men.

 

No ****. Also he doesn't know what happened because he wasn't there either. His opinion is fine and all but it doesn't mean guilty or innocent.

 

I have no idea. But when posters say that "25 year olds don't jog", I am going to call it out.

 

You asked what I meant by "looking for trouble" and this is what I meant. They initiated the confrontation so it is difficult to make a claim for self-defense. "Looking for trouble" isn't a crime but if you're the one who put yourself into that situation undercuts claims of self-defense.

 

Another coward tactic. Refuse to answer any questions, and then when confronted with facts, start accusing the other of the very thing they’ve been doing.

Your simple minded position is that they had reasonable cause and suspicion to suspect him of committing a felony giving them the right to make a citizen’s arrest. Then during the arrest, Arbery escalated the situation and got himself killed.

U have done nothing but dodge questions this entire thread. Now answer my questions loser, or will u keep hiding?

 

Imitation is illegal

 

I disagree with you - I don't think they were "looking for trouble". I think they genuinely believed that this man was up to no good and they thought they were protecting their neighborhood. They were not looking for trouble, they were trying to stop it. I give them that credit even if implicit bias was involved.

Regardless, what they did was still illegal. You only water down the case against them by injecting conjecture of their motives.

 

His interpretation of the events and the law are far better than your uneducated opinion.

You have a habit of assuming you possess more expertise than police, attornies, doctors, and scientists.

 

Self defense is an affirmative defense. It moves some burden to the defense to have some evidence and prove their theory. Then the prosecution has to disprove it.

 

Seriously? You're giving them credit for believing they were doing the right thing and I'm the one watering down the case by injecting conjecture of their motives...

I'm not sure if you're just arguing for the argument sake as we both agree they had no legal basis for trying to apprehend Arbery. In that sense they were "looking for trouble" and knew it otherwise why arm themselves. That they thought they might've been doing right is immaterial as pretty much anyone who get's in a fight will do it because they think they are right.

 

My position is that we need more details to say either way. But there are good arguments that can be made to say these men are not guilty that yall ignore. Not guilty doesn't mean innocent... just they are not povably guilty. And even that said we need more details. Tomorrow another video could come out and make either side more or less the case.

Also ask questions bro but stop whining. I don't know what question you want answered but remind me which one and I don't mind answering. No one is running from reeko's great questions. I literally get dog piled so forgive me for not seeing your post.

 

The video shows the man attacking him by turning 90 degrees and running.... there is nothing to indicate what happened before but the video helps the shotgunner.

 

I just admitted I don't have such expertise to his level and routinely call upon people to trust doctors. You are so full of **** today. You lying is nothing new though.

Also his opinion is just that... not definitive at all and though it speaks to one aspect it fails to cover them all. I am not a lawyer bro but I have more knowledge of law than you... that much is obvious.

 

sure , but if you listen to their story they were out trying to look for someone / catch / detain them .

it’s not illegal to carry a firearm , but any firearm owner should think about the situation they are bringing their firearm into .

I obviously don’t know the full story ... I believe the jogger could have gone for the gun . But , the gun owner was the one who created that possibility .

If you have a gun and are in the car I don’t know how you end up in a situation with 2 people twirling and fighting for control of the barrel .

the people in the vehicle had the agency to avoid an encounter and they didn’t . They chose “confrontation” knowing that they were wielding lethal force .

racist IDK . If they started it by pouring a gun at him IDK . Irresponsible, beyond a doubt .

If you drive irresponsibility and kill someone you have liability .

If you go out looking for a criminal and carry a gun and he ends up shot you should be held responsible. The dead person may have “done something crazy” which is the marginal reason you pulled the trigger or got into a fight .... but you (the shooter) did all the lead up work to create those conditions

 

There is more to it than that. They are also going to have to prove the citizens arrest part to explain why they blocked his way before the confrontation happened and the case law in Georgia is not on their side. If they can't show they had the right to make a citizens arrest it is possible they could face more severe charges since they are essentially trying to commit a false arrest/illegal detainment or maybe even kidnapping depending on the laws in Georgia. Not sure if that can bump it up to felony murder but it could tack on a bigger sentence.

Here is one example of Georgia case law.

In Winn Dixie Stores Inc. v. Nichols, 205 Ga. App. 308, 422 S.E. 2d 209 (1992), a Winn Dixie customer complained to management that another customer stole her wallet. The court held that the limited rights of merchants to detain or arrest a person reasonably believed to have committed a shoplifting offense do not authorize a merchant to detain or arrest individuals accused by store patrons of committing crimes against other patrons. To make the arrest, an employee would have had to actually see the criminal act committed. Therefore, it was ruled that management had no authority to arrest the alleged criminal.The court suggested that the only person who could have made the citizen's arrest was the robbed customer herself.T

That's a steep hill to climb based on the facts we currently have.

 

That is not enough to convict. There will be ways to argue around that. AGAIN I am not a lawyer... but I can see that the evidence is scant and the other side dead but on camera attacking.

 

Meaning I believe that they were in their minds trying to stop a crime and not out to murder someone. Not credit like a pat on the back.

I respect 99% of your posts on here. I don't always agree but I see where you are coming from. Not this time. So you are saying that even if in their minds they were doing the right thing - the moral thing - that they were still "looking for trouble"? That makes no sense whatsoever.

If I see someone trying to rape someone, and I interfere because it's the right the thing to do - am I "looking for trouble"? What makes one action right and one action wrong isn't moral standards - it's the law.

In one case, trying to stop a rape is a justifiable reason for a citizen to interfere. In another, seeing a man running down the street and finding that suspicious - is not. Why? Because one is lawful and the other is not.

 

You don't need to if they argue they were not arresting him. Talking and carrying a gun... which is all they admit to in the police report... is not illegal. Plus there may be more details on this. We will see.

They may also claim the firearm was needed in case the guy had a gun himself and had it for possible defensive actions. Again... carrying is not illegal.