The defendants saw Arbery running, and saw that he did not have a weapon. The son admitted that he raised his rifle and pointed it at Arbery before Arbery made any threatening move towards him. That, right there, is the unreasonable and illegal - action that triggered the fatal shooting.
Had the son not raised his weapon and pointed it at Arbery first, and only pointed it at Arbery after Arbery made a threatening move towards him, it would be a different case.
The son raised his weapon and pointed it at Arbery not to protect himself, but to prevent Arbery from running away. And that is the point at which the claim of self-defense collapses.
It also is the point at which this case diverges from Rittenhouse shooting the third attacker. The third attacker raising his gun and pointing it at Rittenhouse is what gave Rittenhouse the right to shoot him. Rittenhouse was not required to wait and see if Grosskreutz would actually pull the trigger, just as arbury was not required to wait and see if the weapon pointed at him would be fired before attempting to take it from the defendant.
It is known by them that a 9mm was stolen earlier. How can you tell a man doesn't have a 9mm tucked into his waistband behind his back?
The son admitted that he raised his rifle and pointed it at Arbery before Arbery made any threatening move towards him.
Shotgun. And now you have me wondering if you've bothered to actually learn the facts of what happened.
That, right there, is the unreasonable and illegal - action that triggered the fatal shooting.
Disagree. I believe I saw something to the effect that the younger McMichael saw Arbery as making a threatening move towards his father. I also think the younger McMichael had no way of knowing whether Arbery was armed or not. It is quite common for street thugs to carry a gun in their waistband.
The son raised his weapon and pointed it at Arbery not to protect himself, but to prevent Arbery from running away.
I recall reading that he stated he did it because he thought Arbery was going to attack his father. If you have some source that claims he said he did it to prevent Arbery from running away, I will read it.
Rittenhouse the right to shoot him. Rittenhouse was not required to wait and see if Grosskreutz would actually pull the trigger, just as arbury was not required to wait and see if the weapon pointed at him would be fired before attempting to take it from the defendant.
Didn't the first guy Rittenhouse shot grab his gun and try to take it away from him? I recall reading the Prosecutor talking about how strong the strap was, and therefore it was impossible for this guy to take his gun away from him.
Apparently it was justified to shoot the guy when he tried to take the gun.
Most people make up their mind first, then go looking for information that supports what they want to believe.