Jogging in Georgia while black.

Status
Not open for further replies.
This outcome is exactly why citizen's arrest is limited the way it is.

Three men could not apprehend an unarmed person on foot without killing him. The foolishly created a scenario where Arbery was nearly able to take their own firearms and a low stakes pursuit quickly became lethal.

Turns out, letting untrained, under equipped amateurs who aren't wielding the plain authority of the state (aka the police) attempt arrests results in bad outcomes.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
This outcome is exactly why citizen's arrest is limited the way it is.
Click to expand...

The whole "Citizens Arrest Thing" is the exact same red herring the "Castle Defense" was in the Guyver case and "Stand your Ground" was in the Zimmerman case. They didn't really apply if you read the laws and applied even grade school logic to it, but it's what the apologists and defenders are going to keep on hammering on about.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
This outcome is exactly why citizen's arrest is limited the way it is.

Three men could not apprehend an unarmed person on foot without killing him. The foolishly created a scenario where Arbery was nearly able to take their own firearms and a low stakes pursuit quickly became lethal.

Turns out, letting untrained, under equipped amateurs who aren't wielding the plain authority of the state (aka the police) attempt arrests results in bad outcomes.
Click to expand...

I think the odds are really good that this would've played out exactly the same way if a police cruiser had pulled up and confronted him.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
I think the odds are really good that this would've played out exactly the same way if a police cruiser had pulled up and confronted him.
Click to expand...

A police officer would have been holding a taser, pepper spray, or a nightstick and not a shotgun. You know, because they actually attempt to apprehend suspects alive.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
I think the odds are really good that this would've played out exactly the same way if a police cruiser had pulled up and confronted him.
Click to expand...

I think the odds are really good that you just pulled this out of your ass. Either you're saying the cops are really racist there too, or that this is how you would have handled the situation.
 
Disbelief said:
I think the odds are really good that you just pulled this out of your ass. Either you're saying the cops are really racist there too, or that this is how you would have handled the situation.
Click to expand...

I'm saying I think there's a very strong possibility the deceased would've started swinging punches at a cop too.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
A police officer would have been holding a taser, pepper spray, or a nightstick and not a shotgun. You know, because they actually attempt to apprehend suspects alive.
Click to expand...

A police officer would also have the authority of the badge behind and verbal commands. "This is the police, stop running" has meaning to him.

These guys? They are just two white guys with shotguns yelling at a ******. Other than "I'm armed and will shoot you" what basis is there for him to surrender?
 
Skeptic Tank said:
I'm saying I think there's a very strong possibility the deceased would've started swinging punches at a cop too.
Click to expand...

That's just your fantasy to rationalize the rednecks' actions. You have zero reason to believe that, besides your own prejudice.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
In the interests of fairness I'll point out here that in the UK self defense killings (which of course are normally stabbing rather than shootings) don't always go to trial, but those that don't are far more clear cut, I can't think of an example that wasn't an intruder in a private home and involved a weapon of convenience.

This is pretty nit picky though and I otherwise agree that the way this was handled is staggering.
Click to expand...

To be equally nit picky whether the prosecution decides to initially bring a charge against the killer or not, there will still be a court case in England and Wales. As an unnatural death there will be a case in the coroner's court (if there is a criminal case this functions as the coroner's court). The family will be able to present evidence and question those involved if they give evidence. The jury can return a verdict of unlawful killing. In many cases even when a prosecution had not been initially sought a verdict of unlawful killing from the coroner's court will cause the prosecuting authorities to review the decision. In any case there will have been an opportunity to review the facts of the case in a court of law open to the public.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
Because I think he was a criminal who knew he'd been identified as such and had decided he was willing to risk his life to avoid being held accountable / going to jail.
Click to expand...

And why do you assume that? (I mean we all know why, I just want to hear you say it.)
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Tank said:
Okay so you wouldn't stop and calmly reason with them. What would you do?

You would charge them and start swinging?
Click to expand...

Given the circumstances he's absolutely within his rights to start resisting them, including by trying to wrestle their guns away from them. That may not necessarily be the smartest thing to do, but that does not make them any less blameworthy for shooting him.

For all he knows they will shoot him in the back of the head as soon as he kneels down and tries to surrender.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
I'm saying I think there's a very strong possibility the deceased would've started swinging punches at a cop too.
Click to expand...

Alas, we will never know. All we can do is look at the evidence of the actual situation as it actually exists.

In the actual situation, at least one and possibly two people pulled a gun and threatened someone. That's a crime. Everything subsequent was a consequence of that original crime.


If these guys can convince a jury that there was an earlier crime, they might get off, although they shouldn't. Jurors don't always follow the law to the letter, so that might be their best bet.
 
JoeMorgue said:
And why do you assume that? (I mean we all know why, I just want to hear you say it.)
Click to expand...

His past criminal record + how he behaves on the video + a former police officer (the dad) being confident enough that he was the perp that he was prepared to go confront the guy while armed + the item on the street + the fact he was seen in the unfinished house + the previous burglaries being attributed to him by a former cop and others + the DA's indication of possibly another even more conclusive video of him having stolen something just prior to this (if that is distinct from the unfinished house or if what's shown on it is more clear cut than indications so far)

You want to hear me say it's because he's black? I mean, I would say that statistics about young black men and the fact that 1 in 3 black men will do time in prison do sort of make his race a non-irrelevant factor here, sure.
 
bruto said:
I would suggest that the rules for military behavior, especially on a naval ship, are not universal. Brandishing a gun in any situation indicates at least the willingness to kill. For a civilian, not necessarily trained in naval procedure, and not under military orders to protect his situation, I think brandishing demonstrates a willingness so unrestrained and unmitigated by explicit procedure that it overlaps considerably with intent, and should be interpreted thus.
Click to expand...
I'd say that willingness and intend have little overlap.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom