[AnotherUnixGeek]

All of these things together make a reasonable man conclude this man is not only a thief, but is in fact *THE* thief. It is ridiculous to assert a second burglar, without any evidence to support this claim.

You're talking about evidence as if the two shooters were a jury. They weren't. They were two men with guns who tried to detain a citizen going about his business - whether that business was legal or not was not something they had any way of knowing, whatever detective skills they might have been blessed with.

Aimed at the ground. If it were aimed at the *VIOLENT THIEF* he would have killed him with the first blast.

No, the first look we get of these two shows the shooter standing on the ground with his rifle raised. The victim rushing him caused him not to shoot, and I would assume that's what the victim was hoping to achieve to preserve his life when accosted by two armed men.

You've got so many English words mixed up in their meaning that I can see why you have gotten so much wrong.

The problem here isn't English comprehension - the problem is the logical contortions needed to defend this shooting. Dragging out the victim's history, claims of seeing things that simply aren't there on the video - it takes a lot to defend the indefensible.

[UCANSEE2]

They were two men with guns who tried to detain a citizen going about his business - whether that business was legal or not was not something they had any way of knowing, whatever detective skills they might have been blessed with.

So.... you then believe that George Zimmerman had no business following Trayvon and calling the police ?

[DiogenesLamp]

You're talking about evidence as if the two shooters were a jury. They weren't.

Jury's don't arrest people. Cops and Citizens do, and they don't decide guilt they just decide "suspicion."

Suspicion of a crime is all that is necessary.

Cops can't carry around a Jury in their back pocket. Courts decide "facts", Cops grab "suspects."

The victim rushing him caused him not to shoot,

Very bad plan for anyone rushing a man with a shotgun. That he wasn't killed instantly was only because the man holding the shotgun didn't want to kill him.

The problem here isn't English comprehension - the problem is the logical contortions needed to defend this shooting.

Defending the shooting is logical and clear cut. Trying to *FORCE* it to be a "crime", requires all sorts of logical and factual contortions.

You don't see how ridiculous it is because your initial gut reaction is that two "Bubba's" should not be trying to arrest a black guy, and certainly shouldn't be using guns.

But you were not in that situation, and anyone as weak as those two men would stand no chance against a young man like Arbery without a weapon.

You don't have a realistic view of what they were facing. You make these snap judgements from the comfort of your chair, and don't really consider how you would have behaved were you in their situation.

President Eisenhower once said "Farming is easy if your plow is a pencil and the fields are a thousand miles away."