Arbery Trial Verdict In: Guilty on Most Counts

submitted by Richard_Parker from (self.debatealtright)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

SEE THE SYSTEM IS JUST AND NOT RACIST!

Killing people for stealing stuff isn't legitimate. It's not legitimate defense, it's not castle doctrine either since it was a property under construction, basically it was not justified.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Next time a grimy hoodlum reaches for your gun I look forward to you being as philosophical.

In any sane society these men would be lionized and technically IF the disgusting spook had committed felony robbery and not just trespassed then the shooting would have been legal. That's such a small technicality.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The use force matters depending on the severity of the crime and the force citizens can use is different from cops. Even if you can say in hindsight that killing Arbery was a net benefit for the community, the law doesn't work that way. The lesson for this case is don't be a hero and if you suspect a criminal, let law enforcement handle it.

[–]Richard_Parker[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Not when he goes for the shotgun.....

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

They did not have immediate knowledge that Arbery committed a felony which makes their citizen's arrest void. If you chase after someone and provoke a violent confrontation with a gun, you don't get self-defense if you kill someone. They can't prove Arbery is the aggressor which means the defense loses the case.

[–]Richard_Parker[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This was addressed by Branca on his appearance on tomcats, starts about an hour in. Any natural reading of the statute sets two standards, one for crimes generslly and probable cause and reasonable suspicion for a fleeing felon.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Any natural reading of the statute sets two standards, one for crimes generslly and probable cause and reasonable suspicion for a fleeing felon.

That is true, but the interpretation of the law in the trial requires them knowing the crime the felon committed. Trespassing is just a misdemeanor and going by their definition they would be committing a unlawful citizen's arrest. Personally, I think the McMichaels should go free because:

1) Ahmaud Arbery was caught trespassing multiple times on camera.

2) He fled when asked a question, which most people reasonably believe that person probably committed a crime. People don't run away because they were asked a question.

3) There was a series of break ins in the neighborhood by Blacks. It is reasonably to believe Arbery was planning to steal from the construction site or other homes in the neighborhood. Thieves often case out an area before they steal. How many times do you need to illegally trespass to look at a building under construction?

4) Arbery was the aggressor in the final struggle that ended his life. There is no evidence that the three were trying to kill Arbery. Malice murder for Travis McMichael is absurd because there was no racial bias or intent to kill.

5) Arbery was habitual criminal and felon. It is very likely he would commit a crime again.

6) The most the three should get is false imprisonment and aggravated assault. Not life in prison without parole. They weren't bad people. It is wrong that good people should be locked up while criminals roam free.

[–]Richard_Parker[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Watch Branca on Timcast. Most everything you write has been rebutted there. I have no interest in relitiagitng this. The first paragraph depends on a faulty reading of the statute. Also, it is not ist trespass. Intent to burgle is inferred from circumstances even if he did not steal anything.