Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.

[Leonhard]

From a legal perspective, it seems clear that the right to self defense is not absolute. In the case of no-knock warrant raids, there have been cases where it's been done on the wrong house and the person, startled, had no idea it was law enforcement breaking in. Law enforcement is still allowed to shoot the person defending himself against whom he assumes is a burglar.

All of that is true, but I don't think it is a fair analogy to what happened here. Also if the police did break in wrongfully, and you could reasonable demonstrate that you thought the intruder was just someone breaking in (which would be difficult as they tend to shout that they're the police), then you would be completely in your right if you gunned them down. You couldn't be tried for that either.

But we're talking here not about the police, but about three guys, pursuing someone who's trying to avoid them, where they've cut him off several times, and been yelling at him to stop. And one of them gets out and puts a shotgun in his face.

Does he have the right to self-defense?

[Watermelon]

Omitted Facts from your analysis:
1) That crimes, both reported and unreported, had recently occurred in the neighborhood
2) That the police had previously asked the father to get involved and asked the neighbor to contact the father
3) That detaining him on suspicious activity is not illegal
4) That the video evidence clearly shows the actual physical confrontation was initiated by Arbery


Questions that I believe still need answering
1) There is no video evidence of the truck passing in front of the house. How did they know Arbery was the one who had entered and exited the construction site?
2) At what point were they notified, and by whom? The neighbor says he didn't. The homeowner says he didn't.

I don’t believe a private citizen can detain someone merely based on ‘suspicious activity’ that would be much too broad a power.

A man is dead. The person responsible is known. So start with murder and add in the facts.

Two elements of murder are 1. Victims death caused by defendant and 2. defendant had intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to victim.

Element 1 is established.

The only defence for murder is self defence. Was it done in self defence? There was a physical altercation preceding the shooting so potentially valid argument. If the defendant initiated the incident then self defence can not be considered. Who initiated?

If self defence fails then move on to element 2. Was there an intention to kill or otherwise hurt the victim? Doubtful there was intention to kill but common law also states that even without intention, if defendant creates a situation where there is reasonable likelihood of injury or death occurring then it would be reckless indifference which courts have held as equal to intention. Was death or injury a reasonably likely outcome?

If yes then murder, if no then manslaughter.

Did defendant initiate the incident and was death or injury to victim likely? These are the questions it comes down to.

[oxmixmudd]

There's actually an interesting question here. If three guys in two vans have been pursuing you, and one of them drives up ahead of you and cuts you off and someone steps out of it with a shotgun in a threatening manner. Do you have the right to self-defense in that moment?

I would hope so

[Leonhard]

I would hope so

The whole situation is a bit absurd to me. We don't have citizens arrest laws here. And even within the context of those I don't think the McMichaels were in the right in what they did.

I'm mostly just waiting for the court case for more details about it. At least we're free of having to worry that the court case will be settled on tweb.

[oxmixmudd]

I don’t believe a private citizen can detain someone merely based on ‘suspicious activity’ that would be much too broad a power.

A man is dead. The person responsible is known. So start with murder and add in the facts.

Two elements of murder are 1. Victims death caused by defendant and 2. defendant had intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to victim.

Element 1 is established.

The only defence for murder is self defence. Was it done in self defence? There was a physical altercation preceding the shooting so potentially valid argument. If the defendant initiated the incident then self defence can not be considered. Who initiated?

If self defence fails then move on to element 2. Was there an intention to kill or otherwise hurt the victim? Doubtful there was intention to kill but common law also states that even without intention, if defendant creates a situation where there is reasonable likelihood of injury or death occurring then it would be reckless indifference which courts have held as equal to intention. Was death or injury a reasonably likely outcome?

If yes then murder, if no then manslaughter.

Did defendant initiate the incident and was death or injury to victim likely? These are the questions it comes down to.

So then - hypothetical.

A man confronts me with a gun. For whatever the reason, I believe I can get that gun away, so I try. If that gun goes off in the struggle and kills the other fellow, who's the guilty party? Is it self-defense, or are they arresting me?

I would say (regardless of what the law says) that if I point a gun at someone who has in actual fact done nothing illegal - threatening them and not in self defense - then whatever follows is my own fault. But the actual law is often not so simple (and can be downright unjust at times), so I'm curious

[Mountain Man]

My comments focus on MM's overall defense, If you think I'm going to go through every detail in every post then you are living in a fantasy land.

Right, you prefer vague accusations that avoid specifics because you know you can't back it up.

[oxmixmudd]

The whole situation is a bit absurd to me. We don't have citizens arrest laws here. And even within the context of those I don't think the McMichaels were in the right in what they did.

I'm mostly just waiting for the court case for more details about it. At least we're free of having to worry that the court case will be settled on tweb.

[oxmixmudd]

Right, you prefer vague accusations that avoid specifics because you know you can't back it up.

Sure - that's what it's all about.

[NorrinRadd]

Pointing out the hypocrisy of the media in covering race-based killings is not racist, Jim.

This is giving unfortunate insights into Ox's world-view.

[Cow Poke]

Haven't we reached that point where everybody is now saying the same things over and over, and it's time to wait for the trial, and hear facts under oath, subject to cross?

It seems this has degenerated into a personality conflict, out of which I am happily staying.

[NorrinRadd]

Haven't we reached that point where everybody is now saying the same things over and over, and it's time to wait for the trial, and hear facts under oath, subject to cross?

It seems this has degenerated into a personality conflict, out of which I am happily staying.

I applaud your restraint, and your grammatical construction.

[oxmixmudd]

This is giving unfortunate insights into Ox's world-view.

I know - isn't it horrible that I view racism in america as bad, and that I'm willing to speak out against the continued legacy of slavery and the oppression of black people in our country even in the midst of a resurgence of white supremacy and the like at the encouragement of our current president? Even as he continues his relentless attacks on the character and legacy of our first Black president - for no other reason than the fact he is ... our first Black President.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/19/polit...use/index.html

The more Trump attacks and demeans Obama, the more respect I have for him. And Obama continues to walk a very high road considering. And I am sure all the white supremacists and neo-Nazis and KKK members are just as happy as happy can be as he does it. Are you right there with them?

Horrible, unfortunate insights.

[Watermelon]

So then - hypothetical.

A man confronts me with a gun. For whatever the reason, I believe I can get that gun away, so I try. If that gun goes off in the struggle and kills the other fellow, who's the guilty party? Is it self-defense, or are they arresting me?

I would say (regardless of what the law says) that if I point a gun at someone who has in actual fact done nothing illegal - threatening them and not in self defense - then whatever follows is my own fault. But the actual law is often not so simple (and can be downright unjust at times), so I'm curious

That’s likely to be self defence. Confronting someone armed is initiating the conflict as it would be what causes that person to take actions to defend themselves from a potential fatal threat. Being armed in a confrontation automatically escalates the situation into one where the likelihood of death or serious injury is increased.

Self defence isn’t just for situations where your own life is in danger, it’s if any life is in danger.

So say the victim wrestled the gun away from the defendant and was about to shoot. The defendants father in the truck sees this and shoots the victim first. That would be self defence. The initial aggressor rule wouldn’t apply as the moment the victim is in control of the gun the initial threat would be deemed over. The act of then pointing the gun at the defendant would now be the victim initiating a new situation and the father would be able to claim self defence for shooting and killing the victim.

[Leonhard]

That’s likely to be self defence. Confronting someone armed is initiating the conflict as it would be what causes that person to take actions to defend themselves from a potential fatal threat. Being armed in a confrontation automatically escalates the situation into one where the likelihood of death or serious injury is increased.

Self defence isn’t just for situations where your own life is in danger, it’s if any life is in danger.

So say the victim wrestled the gun away from the defendant and was about to shoot. The defendants father in the truck sees this and shoots the victim first. That would be self defence. The initial aggressor rule wouldn’t apply as the moment the victim is in control of the gun the initial threat would be deemed over. The act of then pointing the gun at the defendant would now be the victim initiating a new situation and the father would be able to claim self defence for shooting and killing the victim.

If a person confronts someone fully armed, after pursing the victim, and the victim has tried multiple times to flee, if they engage the victim with a weapon... then it's difficult for me to see how they can get away with a plea of self-defense. That would seem to be aggravated assault at least.

At any rate the father wasn't the one who shot Ahmoud, it was his son who got out of the car and was carrying the shotgun.

[Leonhard]

All of that is true, but I don't think it is a fair analogy to what happened here. Also if the police did break in wrongfully, and you could reasonable demonstrate that you thought the intruder was just someone breaking in (which would be difficult as they tend to shout that they're the police), then you would be completely in your right if you gunned them down. You couldn't be tried for that either.

But we're talking here not about the police, but about three guys, pursuing someone who's trying to avoid them, where they've cut him off several times, and been yelling at him to stop. And one of them gets out and puts a shotgun in his face.

Does he have the right to self-defense?

Bumping this question.