Jogging in Georgia while black.

[Meadmaker]

Help me understand.

If it's legal in Georgia to open carry firearms, and it's legal in Georgia to approach another citizen, and it's legal in Georgia even to perform citizens' arrests... then how can any combination of these actions constitute legal basis for you "defending yourself" by launching a physical assault against someone doing any combination of those things?

It's not legal to threaten someone with a weapon. (Or without a weapon, for that matter. The presence of the weapon merely changes what is considered a thread.)

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Because that makes murder legal.

All you have to do is find a black person, say (with no evidence needed) that you think they are a suspect in a crime (and the crime doesn't even have to have happened), shove a gun in their face, and then shoot them.

So does the fact that I could buy a knife with cash, handle it only with gloves and put it in a ziploc bag, then invite a stranger off the street to come inside my house for "a cold one" or something, then shoot them dead, put the knife without my prints on it (which can't be shown to have been purchased by me either) in their hand, and then call cops and say they charged into my house with the knife and I shot them in self defense... does this scenario effectively "make murder legal" ?

Or does it just mean things can happen where evidence isn't clear and that's just life, and we have to hope that it doesn't happen much or that forensics catches most people who do such deceptions?

Because having open carry does not mean you can threaten with a gun and the "criminal" has actually not committed a criminal act. Pointing the gun is a threat, so he would be within his legal rights to defend himself. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

We agree that open carry is different from brandishing and from threatening with a gun. Right?

Okay so if it's legal to open carry a gun and it's legal to confront someone, and it's legal to do the two things together - you would then agree that there is a way to do that which doesn't then also become threatening with a gun and/or brandishing it?

My standard would be, you haven't done those things until you have pointed it at a person or sort of grabbed it and started to raise it or obviously prepare to, especially if coupled with verbal threats referencing it, etc.

Now, the question here is - at the time when the two men first raised up their guns at all, what had they seen the deceased do? What were they reacting to him doing? That would be the key here.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Citizens arrest is still really dumb for many reasons, but it doesn't appear that Georgia's law even applies anyways.

It's the same excuse we heard during the Trayvon Martin case, arguing that Zimmerman had a "stand your ground" defense... when he was the one who wasn't letting Zimmerman get away and in the Guyver case where it was all "Castle Doctrine" even though she was in his house.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Can you point out where in the video they point gun(s) at him prior to him attacking them?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13081826#post13081826


Here's the screen grab. It's easier to see if you watch the video at low speed and high resolution, but McMichael raises the shotgun on Arbery while he's still at a distance jogging on the road. It's quite clear that McMichael brings the shotgun up from pointing down and points it at Arbery. It's not until after McMichael points the shotgun at him that Arbery veers off the road and runs around the truck.

Arbery had legal right to attack McMichael at that point in order to defend himself from a man brandishing a shotgun.

 

[Arcade22]

Help me understand.

If it's legal in Georgia to open carry firearms, and it's legal in Georgia to approach another citizen, and it's legal in Georgia even to perform citizens' arrests... then how can any combination of these actions constitute legal basis for you "defending yourself" by launching a physical assault against someone doing any combination of those things?

Since you are a racist, lets consider how you would perceive the situation had the white guys been black and the black guy been white.

Two black guys brandishing guns pull up their truck right in-front of some white guy and tell him to stop while pointing their guns at him. I'm just guessing, but for some reason i think you would suddenly find that the white guy was the victim of a terrible injustice if he was found to have been justifiably shot dead for "resisting a citizens arrest".

 

[JoeMorgue]

Two black guys brandishing guns pull up their truck right in-front of some white guy and tell him to stop while pointing their guns at him. I'm just guessing, but for some reason i think you would suddenly find that the white guy was the victim of a terrible injustice if he was shot dead for "resisting a citizens arrest".

Just for the record the fact that the two white guys were arrested is a "great injustice" according to Skeptic Tank.

So just so we are clear.

- Two armed civilians acting totally independently chasing down a black guy who they thought was the suspect in a string of crimes that never even happened and then killing him because he didn't "come quietly" is okay.

- The actual legal authorities arresting the two men in response to social pressure/peaceful demonstrations is not.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm wondering if this was already at the point where he'd started charging at them. Sadly we are getting video from another vehicle, a fair ways behind the event, and some of the most important moments are lost to bad phone handling or involved parties being obscured by the truck, etc.

I strongly suspect the guns were raised in reaction, not the other way around.

Definitely not in the frame in question. Travis raises the gun shortly after exiting the driver's side door. At this point, Arbery is still jogging, and is on the left side of the road. After the gun is raised Arbery abruptly shifts toward the right (passenger) side, increasing his speed and changing his gait. Travis then moves around to the front of the truck. As Arbery clears the truck on the passenger side, Arbery changes directions and charges at Travis McMichael, resulting in the fatal struggle.

There's really zero doubt about anything except whether Travis raised the gun. The cell phone photo on the internet is difficult to see. It sure looks that way to me, but I can't be absolutely certain. If Travis raised the gun, that's a threat of deadly force, and is a felony, and everything that happened afterwards is a consequence of that action. If not, then it might be worth taking a chance with the jury, insisting that there was no threat by the McMichaels.

Good luck with that. I think a reasonable person in Arbery's situation would have a fear of death or great bodily harm, making self defense a legitimate response.

People would also say that about Travis during the struggle. As Arbery tried to grab the gun, self defense would be a legitimate response. Unfortunately for the younger McMichael, he had eliminated the legitimacy of that defense by his earlier threat.

Unless they come up with something new, they're going to lose. If you are right, and they can convince a jury that Mr. Arbery was a fleeing criminal, then they might be able to convince a jury to let them off, even if the letter of the law says they should not.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

[qimg]https://i.ibb.co/9stf2yJ/raised.png[/qimg]


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13081826#post13081826


Here's the screen grab. It's easier to see if you watch the video at low speed and high resolution, but McMichael raises the shotgun on Arbery while he's still at a distance jogging on the road. It's quite clear that McMichael brings the shotgun up from pointing down and points it at Arbery. It's not until after McMichael points the shotgun at him that Arbery veers off the road and runs around the truck.

Arbery had legal right to attack McMichael at that point in order to defend himself from a man brandishing a shotgun.

Thanks, I just watched it multiple times paying close attention to that part.

I agree that if they already had guns trained on him at that point, they are in worse shape legally. I agree that it looks like they MAY have done so at that point, but after watching it multiple times - it is not clear to me that they did. Maybe, maybe not.

Everything about their actions indicates they were completely positive he was the thief (and I think they were right)

Everything about his actions indicates he agreed with them and intended to flee / fight. I don't think he ever viewed them as some random murderers / lynchers showing up. He knew precisely why they were interested in him, and he viewed them as agents of consequence and accountability - not spooky murderific KKKlansmen.

This is admittedly my (100% correct) speculation.

 

[Disbelief]

We agree that open carry is different from brandishing and from threatening with a gun. Right?

Okay so if it's legal to open carry a gun and it's legal to confront someone, and it's legal to do the two things together - you would then agree that there is a way to do that which doesn't then also become threatening with a gun and/or brandishing it?

My standard would be, you haven't done those things until you have pointed it at a person or sort of grabbed it and started to raise it or obviously prepare to, especially if coupled with verbal threats referencing it, etc.

Now, the question here is - at the time when the two men first raised up their guns at all, what had they seen the deceased do? What were they reacting to him doing? That would be the key here.

Odd how you give them all the leeway in the world, yet not the victim. You don't know what they were saying or doing that might have given him the only option to fight for his life.

Actually it's not odd, since you're openly racist.

 

[Thermal]

That is the terrifying thing about this, their statements clearly showed a crime had happened yet the decision was to not prosecute until the video came out.

This. It took the twittersphere to get some action.

Although I think murder is the wrong charge. The video shows a struggle with the gun. Its too easy to claim it was accidental, or a contest od self defense claims. I'd rather see the charges going for the slam dunk than the hail Mary. Actual murder will be too hard to stick with Arbery wrestling with a presumably semi auto shotgun.

I'm guessing neither party was out to kill. Again, gut feeling, the rednecks thought they were going to wave guns around and show everyone who's boss. Arbery called their bluff (because he didn't do anything, so probably didn't think of this as a genuine shootout situation).

There is no citizens arrest issue, and Arbery had zero reason to comply with any demands. And hillbilly boys had no right to make any. Does Georgia allow for a jury to convict on a different charge? Say, harassment, assault, brandishing, some variation of kidnapping/unlawful restraint, and criminal manslaughter?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Everything about their actions indicates they were completely positive he was the thief (and I think they were right)

Everything about his actions indicates he agreed with them and intended to flee / fight. I don't think he ever viewed them as some random murderers / lynchers showing up. He knew precisely why they were interested in him, and he viewed them as agents of consequence and accountability - not spooky murderific KKKlansmen.

This is admittedly my (100% correct) speculation.

I would tentatively agree that the two killers probably were quite confident they were in the right. You have to be pretty confident to stalk someone and set up an armed roadblock.

Their confidence has little to do with whether they were legally correct. Citizen's arrest is widely understood to be quite legally risky because it does not immunize people who make mistakes of fact or overstep the authority granted. If it turns out that Arbery was, at best, trespassing, and was not engaged in burglary, then they committed murder.

I think it's impossible to make any assumption about why Arbery would run from three armed rednecks. Guilty or innocent, the desire to flee is the largely the same. If anything, an innocent man might be more scared because he would not understand why these people were stalking him.

 

[lionking]

As a runner one of the first thing I thought was “he’s running at a pretty solid pace”. I think it’s likely he was spooked by the car slowly following him. He then sees a hillbilly pointing a gun at him. Who in their right mind would think it a good idea to stop and calmly reason with these people? I’m white, and I certainly wouldn’t. A black man in Georgia would be insane to simply stop.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Odd how you give them all the leeway in the world, yet not the victim. You don't know what they were saying or doing that might have given him the only option to fight for his life.

Actually it's not odd, since you're openly racist.

Do I start from the default position of siding with the white guys? Yep.

You choose to refer to this as being "openly racist" - okay. I'm not going to argue against that.

But I will point out that almost every black person I've seen commenting on this on Twitter, comment sections, YouTube comments, etc. are all framing this in a very explicitly "F white people" type of way and saying things which make it abundantly clear that they start from the default position of siding with their co-racial too. This was also made very clear with Trayvon, OJ, Michael Brown, etc.

You need to maybe wrap your mind around the fact that this is just how humans are. They identify with and give more benefit of the doubt to those more closely related to them genetically and culturally.

I question the notion that this is a bad thing or a thing to be gotten past.

 

[lionking]

Thanks, I just watched it multiple times paying close attention to that part.

I agree that if they already had guns trained on him at that point, they are in worse shape legally. I agree that it looks like they MAY have done so at that point, but after watching it multiple times - it is not clear to me that they did. Maybe, maybe not.

Everything about their actions indicates they were completely positive he was the thief (and I think they were right)

Everything about his actions indicates he agreed with them and intended to flee / fight. I don't think he ever viewed them as some random murderers / lynchers showing up. He knew precisely why they were interested in him, and he viewed them as agents of consequence and accountability - not spooky murderific KKKlansmen.

This is admittedly my (100% correct) speculation.

Yes, I know why you think that.

Your prejudice is crystal clear.

 

[JoeMorgue]

A black man in Georgia would be insane to simply stop.

And that's the point. Make sure black people are scared, and then use their fear as justification.

It's Catch-22. "We shot the black guy because he reacted as if he was scared we were gonna shoot him."

And again this is all under the assumption that he acted differently he would have lived instead of whatever the excuse is changing.

 

[pgwenthold]

Because having open carry does not mean you can threaten with a gun and the "criminal" has actually not committed a criminal act. Pointing the gun is a threat, so he would be within his legal rights to defend himself. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Because the poster you are responding to is a raging racist and so any time a black person gets killed, it is acceptable.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The problem is the "Raging racist" is using the same argument the passive apologists are, just with more oomph.

 

[Craig4]

Help me understand.

If it's legal in Georgia to open carry firearms, and it's legal in Georgia to approach another citizen, and it's legal in Georgia even to perform citizens' arrests... then how can any combination of these actions constitute legal basis for you "defending yourself" by launching a physical assault against someone doing any combination of those things?

What law did the two crackers see their victim break? Not suspect him of breaking mind you, that's not in the Georgia law. If the answer is that they did not see their victim commit a crime then the morons were unlawfully detaining him and he had every right to attempt to escape with the use of force.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

As a runner one of the first thing I thought was “he’s running at a pretty solid pace”. I think it’s likely he was spooked by the car slowly following him. He then sees a hillbilly pointing a gun at him. Who in their right mind would think it a good idea to stop and calmly reason with these people? I’m white, and I certainly wouldn’t. A black man in Georgia would be insane to simply stop.

Okay so you wouldn't stop and calmly reason with them. What would you do?

You would charge them and start swinging?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay so you wouldn't stop and calmly reason with them.

In your world I would try really, really, really hard to not be black since that would be my only hope.