How is it premeditated if their intention was to arrest him? Or detain him? CLEARLY their intention wasn’t to shoot him for fleeing.
How is it premeditated if their intention was to arrest him? Or detain him? CLEARLY their intention wasn’t to shoot him for fleeing.
One could argue that arrests are messy, especially when you load up on a shot gun and the perps already admitted they thought Arbery was armed and dangerous. Bringing the guns to get a “bad guy” is what makes this all messy. Citizens are supposed to be arresting officers, even under citizen arrests, all a citizen can do is hold the person they witnessed commit a crime until the police show up.
Premeditated based on their own statements at this point.
But I believe, I read that they are charged with Felony Murder, which is a step down from murder, which has a premeditated requirement.
They weren't police. They have no legal right to follow someone that may have committed a crime and belligerently threaten him with a gun. By that point they were already guilty of kidnapping an several other crimes. CLEARLY their intention wasn’t to shoot him for fleeing.
I think their intention was to shoot him all along. For "resisting."
There story makes no sense, and they couldn't pick a side. They said he had his hands in his pants, because they wanted to be able to claim he had a gun, for when they used their guns.
But someone is't running from a crime scene with their hands in their pants. Plus, they would have had to go get the gun. (Which would not give them the right to go after him anyway)
Their story makes no sense. They were going after this specific guy all along. They didn't just happen to be stalking him when they saw him commit a crime and they were entitles to run posse on him.