Posted on 05/10/2020 7:39:27 PM PDT by Widget Jr
It shows a man who appears to be Arbery entering and walking around a house being built. The men who killed Arbery told police they were concerned about break-ins.
They grabbed guns because they believe their victim was armed and dangerous and hunted him down. The son got out of the truck to apprehend Arbery with a loaded shot gun in his hands, saying he wanted to “talk to him” at Arbery. That is “at gun point” to the victim at that moment.
Please provide a link to the police report you claim exists. I have not seen it.
Having a shotgun in your hands and asking someone to talk to you is not "at gun point".
"At gun point" means at the point of a gun. If the gun is not pointed at you, it is not "at gun point".
Here’s one thing no one has addressed.
OBVIOUSLY this is not the full video of him inside. Why didnt the race hustlers give us the whole thing? I think we know why.
Having a shotgun in your hands and asking someone to talk to you is not “at gun point”.
“At gun point” means at the point of a gun. If the gun is not pointed at you, it is not “at gun point”.
When this guy is playing cop and had the shot gun in his hands, demanding to “to talk”, yes that can easily be interpreted as “at gun point”
You don’t need to physically point the gun, the gun just needs to be visibly present
The more you know
Don’t take your shot gun and go around chasing people you think are criminals and you won’t have this problem. Very easy to avoid.
The video of him inside the house I believe was off of someone’s surveillance system, I doubt the house under construction has a camera system installed and I doubt the neighbors are “race hustlers”.
Just pointing that out
You mean defense? I saw a man defending himself against armed and dangerous wanabe cops who believe their actions are justified through “citizen’s arrest” for a crime they themselves did not witness. The idiot fake cop fired three shots at the man.
Nice try though
Running would be a good idea.
It was a trivial matter to turn and run in another direction where the truck could not follow. A young man in good physical condition (a "jogger") could do that all day - while laughing at the old geezers trying to chase him.
If they were going to shoot him running away, they would have already done that. And there would be no video either.
Seizing a weapon from an armed person at low ready only works in movies. Running 60' to grab a shotgun is a suicidal tactic. Aubrey was not desperately trying to save his life. He was belligerently attacking people who had confronted him.
That isn't "self-defense" for either party.
There are pretty good odds for a conviction on charges of "Involuntary Manslaughter". Any greater charges are clearly from political motivations.
It seems to support the fact that Arbrey was killed unnecessarily. He was looking through a house under construction. Was that illegal? Perhaps, but if so then the police would be locking up tens of thousands of people. I've walked through construction sites myself, out of curiosity and wanting to see how they laid things out. The video says that nothing was reported stolen at the site so he didn't steal anything. There was no reason to stop him, much less shoot him.
You cannot claim defense by running and attacking someone, even if they are holding a gun. He had avenues of egress to leave, yet he chose to go FORWARD at full speed and ATTACK.
You don’t need to physically point the gun, the gun just needs to be visibly present
Only by people desperately attempting bolster an untenable position.
Perhaps by people who are hoplophobes. (inordinate fear of weapons)
Courts have ruled on this. A police officer is not holding someone at gun point if he asks to talk to them, while armed. They can leave.
Merely having a gun is not threatening someone with it. They are distinct, different things.
That may be true.
It is irrelevant to issue of self defense.
Clearly, Arbery could have avoided being killed by not attacking McMichael.
His death was, in a sense, unnessesary.
It is irrelevant.
How can he defend himself against a group of armed vigilantes who intentions were to shoot and kill him?
Running would be a good idea.
He did that, they caught up to him in their pick up trucks
Now what?
It was a trivial matter to turn and run in another direction where the truck could not follow. A young man in good physical condition (a “jogger”) could do that all day - while laughing at the old geezers trying to chase him.
He was on a public road, he is between two trucks one in front with two guys with guns and truck in the back (man doing the video) who may or may not be armed
Which direction does he run?
If he runs into people’s yard/back yards he would be committing the crime of trespassing, and these yahoos could witness that.....
If they were going to shoot him running away, they would have already done that. And there would be no video either.
They were trying “arrest” him and shot him when it didn’t go the way they wanted it to go. I guess they just thought some stranger on the street was just going to submit to their illegal police actions. They were wrong.
Seizing a weapon from an armed person at low ready only works in movies. Running 60’ to grab a shotgun is a suicidal tactic. Aubrey was not desperately trying to save his life. He was belligerently attacking people who had confronted him.
He had every right to self defense, he can’t out run their pick up trucks, and the man with a shot gun is out after him. 60’ nah, more like 15 or less, he certainly can’t out run a shot gun blast at that close range, it was point blank by the looks of the video and the distance. Narrow focus camera at the distance from left to right of the view was probably 18’ max.
The aggressor doesn’t have a right to self defense, he lost that right when he became the aggressor and was hunting down this man so he can “citizen’s arrest” him, which by Georgia definition was illegal for him to perform.
At that point the victim had every legal right to disarm or neutralize the aggressor.
Perhaps. But he could also have feared for his life and was fighting to defend himself. We'll never know because one side of the issue is dead and the other side are under arrest.
They saw him enter a house that had been burgled before. Under Georgia law, his trespass was a crime. They saw him take off running when he was spotted.
They had NO WAY OF KNOWING if the guy was carrying a concealed handgun, and so chose to be armed themselves before confronting him.
Yes. I have been making that point.
Because he believed that such a call would be pointless.
In many jurisdictions, it would be pointless. By department policy, officers will respond to 911 calls only in cases of homicide or active assaults. Burglars are free to walk away unimpeded, if they are smart.
That's why you eventually get vigilantes.
He could have charged an armed man because he was an innocent man in fear for his life. But that's something I would do only if I was CERTAIN that I was about to be killed, and thus had nothing to lose.
Alternately, he charged an armed man because he was a criminal on probation, and realized that he could not afford to be arrested again.
The rationality of assuming whether you are in danger depends on the circumstances. If I was on foot in an "inner city" area, and some openly armed men said they wanted to talk to me, I would have a much different reaction than if I was in a middle-class suburban neighborhood and some armed residents wanted to talk to me.
It's very politically incorrect to make the above distinction these days, but reality is that I would be in danger from minority underclass people, but not in danger from armed middle-class people. Underclass thugs kill people routinely. Middle-class home owners don't.
A duck hunter would regard that kind of conduct from a fellow duck hunter as both a breach of gun etiquette and menacing. The circumstances were even more provocative because the confrontation was between two armed white strangers broadly defending their neighborhood from a suspicious incursion by a Black man.
If of an entirely innocent mind, Aubery ought to have tried to defuse the confrontation through talk. And so Aubery's attack on a man with a shotgun pointed his way suggests a guilty or unsettled mind. We shall see if additional facts emerge that support such an inference.
There were not two shooters. Get it right.
you have no idea what was said to him
I never said I did. Get it straight.
you obviously have no idea what he was thinking
Again, I never once stated I did. Can you get anything straight?
I see at least 3 people in 2 different vehicles tracking down, cutting off and confronting an unarmed black man.
Wrong. The pickup truck was stationary, not moving. The decedent ran at them, ran about 60' right at the armed neighbor and physically attack him and tried to disarm the neighbor. Don't give me that bull shit he was, "Cornered". It was the decedent who turned into the aggressor, and if ya can't see that on the video, I can't help ya.
You jog around a pickup truck and you are suddenly confronted with a man with a shotgun, feet away, yelling at you to stop. I have no idea what was going through Arbrey's mind when faced with that but fearing for his life isn't outside the realm of possibility. And if faced with that then it's not surprising he tried to get the gun away.
The rationality of assuming whether you are in danger depends on the circumstances. If I was on foot in an "inner city" area, and some openly armed men said they wanted to talk to me, I would have a much different reaction than if I was in a middle-class suburban neighborhood and some armed residents wanted to talk to me.
So you're admitting you might fear for your life if confronted by black men in a black neighborhood. Why should Arbrey feel any different if confronted by white men in a white neighborhood? In Georgia?
Not exactly. They didn't chase him down from behind. Arbery didn't know the neighborhood had only one exit and he ran the wrong way. The McMichaels did jump in their truck and cut him off before the one exit.
They didn’t carry a shotgun with them with the intent to arrest him?
Carrying a shotgun in Georgia is not illegal. And by your own admission the intent was to arrest him, not murder him. So did they have the right to arrest him? The dad told the cops that he observed Arbery "hauling ass" and when McMichael shouted "stop" Arbery kept running. Any judge would find a strong presumption that a stranger who bolts out the door of a previously burgled home was up to no good. There is overwhelming probable cause that Arbery was committing a crime "within the knowledge" of McMichael and therefore McMichael had a right to make a citizen's arrest.
They didn’t confront him with the shotgun?
No, they did not. Arbery was free to jog on past the truck and did in fact jog on without incident past the guy in the bed of the pickup truck, who had a pistol I read. But once Arbery got to the front of the truck he chose to take a hard left turn and charged the guy with the shotgun. McMichael didn't even shoot him right away; there was a fairly long struggle for the gun before it was fired. If his intent was to murder Arbery he would've moved over to the passenger side of the truck when Arbery went around in that direction and shot him along side the truck. Further, if his intent was to murder Arbery he would've been tracking him the whole time with the shotgun and as soon as Arbery came into range he would've fired, not delayed. Certainly if his intent was to murder him he would've been tracking him and fired as soon as Arbery charged at him without waiting. That didn't happen. And finally, the McMichaels probably didn't know the scene was being videoed but they must've seen the vehicle following Arbery, the one that took the video. It's not likely they would've gone through with a plan to murder Arbery knowing full well there was at least one witness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.