Without the release of the video do they get charged?
Nope.
Pretty amazing that it was video that their boy took that did them in.
You can't chase a dude down with a gun then act surprised and claim self defense when there's a struggle for the gun.
There was an attempt at self defense but it wasn't by the two who are still alive.
I can't see how running towards a loaded gun is self-defense. It might work in the movies, but Jason Bourne isn't real.
Real life is different, as this video shows.
The defense is going to argue that anyone who goes at a guy who's legally holding a loaded gun shows a dangerous intent on the part of the victim in this case. And, in all likelihood, it's going to stick with a couple jurors.
I'm not proud of it at all, but this is a very Trayvon type situation here. And to me, that case is a tragedy of epic proportions, but not surprising.
It'll be an interesting legal strategy to say the least. When you're in apprehension of imminent physical harm, what you're legally allowed to do to other human beings changes drastically. At least as I recall from Crim Law. Not my area, but if someone pulls a gun on you in a situation that you did not initiate ... I just wonder if it's as simple as citizen's arrest law. You have to review the facts.
Yeah, he may be legally holding a weapon, but is that how it works? Is it that simple? If you're trimming your bushes at home and I approach with a loaded gun pointed at you and the circumstances are such that you know I'm not there for a game of chess ... all you know is that I've got a live gun pointed at you, are you expected to concern yourself with my legal standing to do so?
This is why these laws are bullshit. If I approach you at a restaurant, and we don't know each other, and I motion like I'm going to jack you, and your assessment of my intentions are reasonable (e.g., you have no reason to believe I'm just fucking around), then you are legally entitled to wipe the floor with me. That much I'm pretty sure.
I'm not saying it was smart of the guy to bull rush him. I, myself, would have complied hoping someone was watching.
But we weren't there and God knows those two dudes look like they are right out of central casting for Deliverance and he's a black kid in Ga. and these two hillbilly-looking mother fuckers are following him in a pick-up truck and then approach him with guns. From a distance at least, it's like a scene out of Mississippi Burning (great movie, btw) for Christ's sake.
I agree with you. It has all the tragedy of the Trayvon Martin matter. Keep your fucking gun at home and call the fucking cops. If someone is missing another yard ornament, WFAF.
Another case where a jury is required to do the impossible task of reading minds, one of which is dead. Quickly switches to "What would I have done in that situation?" While regrettable that the son took the shotgun out of the truck while dad was already holding & aiming, I'm trying to find 1 person out of twelve who will say, as the jogger, "I would've bull-rushed the guy holding the shotgun - to Defend myself."
How the hell do you get 12 jurors to feel the same way, given that video?
Murder guys? Really?
Yes. Murder.
100% murder.
If the law determines that it wasn't murder than the law needs to be changed.
Responsibility is completely on the shooters in this case. You initiate a confrontation and do so while brandishing a loaded weapon you assume responsibility for what happens from there. i
Without the release of the video do they get charged?
Nope.
Pretty amazing that it was video that their boy took that did them in.
You can't chase a dude down with a gun then act surprised and claim self defense when there's a struggle for the gun.
There was an attempt at self defense but it wasn't by the two who are still alive.
I can't see how running towards a loaded gun is self-defense. It might work in the movies, but Jason Bourne isn't real.
Real life is different, as this video shows.
The defense is going to argue that anyone who goes at a guy who's legally holding a loaded gun shows a dangerous intent on the part of the victim in this case. And, in all likelihood, it's going to stick with a couple jurors.
I'm not proud of it at all, but this is a very Trayvon type situation here. And to me, that case is a tragedy of epic proportions, but not surprising.
It'll be an interesting legal strategy to say the least. When you're in apprehension of imminent physical harm, what you're legally allowed to do to other human beings changes drastically. At least as I recall from Crim Law. Not my area, but if someone pulls a gun on you in a situation that you did not initiate ... I just wonder if it's as simple as citizen's arrest law. You have to review the facts.
Yeah, he may be legally holding a weapon, but is that how it works? Is it that simple? If you're trimming your bushes at home and I approach with a loaded gun pointed at you and the circumstances are such that you know I'm not there for a game of chess ... all you know is that I've got a live gun pointed at you, are you expected to concern yourself with my legal standing to do so?
This is why these laws are bullshit. If I approach you at a restaurant, and we don't know each other, and I motion like I'm going to jack you, and your assessment of my intentions are reasonable (e.g., you have no reason to believe I'm just fucking around), then you are legally entitled to wipe the floor with me. That much I'm pretty sure.
I'm not saying it was smart of the guy to bull rush him. I, myself, would have complied hoping someone was watching.
But we weren't there and God knows those two dudes look like they are right out of central casting for Deliverance and he's a black kid in Ga. and these two hillbilly-looking mother fuckers are following him in a pick-up truck and then approach him with guns. From a distance at least, it's like a scene out of Mississippi Burning (great movie, btw) for Christ's sake.
I agree with you. It has all the tragedy of the Trayvon Martin matter. Keep your fucking gun at home and call the fucking cops. If someone is missing another yard ornament, WFAF.
Another case where a jury is required to do the impossible task of reading minds, one of which is dead. Quickly switches to "What would I have done in that situation?" While regrettable that the son took the shotgun out of the truck while dad was already holding & aiming, I'm trying to find 1 person out of twelve who will say, as the jogger, "I would've bull-rushed the guy holding the shotgun - to Defend myself."
How the hell do you get 12 jurors to feel the same way, given that video?
Murder guys? Really?
Yes. Murder.
100% murder.
If the law determines that it wasn't murder than the law needs to be changed.
Responsibility is completely on the shooters in this case. You initiate a confrontation and do so while brandishing a loaded weapon you assume responsibility for what happens from there. i
This shouldn't be complicated.
Very unlikely murder 1 under the circs. Long shot at Murder 2, maybe 20% chance.
Not just the law, but the facts a jury finds are key and 12 must agree. That agreement thing is the catch.
Small dick white NRA members everywhere are certain the jogger is guilty of something and so these white guys were just exercising their 2nd amendment rights...
These people would like you to fuck off and shove it up your dumb ass.
Without the release of the video do they get charged?
Nope.
Pretty amazing that it was video that their boy took that did them in.
You can't chase a dude down with a gun then act surprised and claim self defense when there's a struggle for the gun.
There was an attempt at self defense but it wasn't by the two who are still alive.
I can't see how running towards a loaded gun is self-defense. It might work in the movies, but Jason Bourne isn't real.
Real life is different, as this video shows.
The defense is going to argue that anyone who goes at a guy who's legally holding a loaded gun shows a dangerous intent on the part of the victim in this case. And, in all likelihood, it's going to stick with a couple jurors.
I'm not proud of it at all, but this is a very Trayvon type situation here. And to me, that case is a tragedy of epic proportions, but not surprising.
It'll be an interesting legal strategy to say the least. When you're in apprehension of imminent physical harm, what you're legally allowed to do to other human beings changes drastically. At least as I recall from Crim Law. Not my area, but if someone pulls a gun on you in a situation that you did not initiate ... I just wonder if it's as simple as citizen's arrest law. You have to review the facts.
Yeah, he may be legally holding a weapon, but is that how it works? Is it that simple? If you're trimming your bushes at home and I approach with a loaded gun pointed at you and the circumstances are such that you know I'm not there for a game of chess ... all you know is that I've got a live gun pointed at you, are you expected to concern yourself with my legal standing to do so?
This is why these laws are bullshit. If I approach you at a restaurant, and we don't know each other, and I motion like I'm going to jack you, and your assessment of my intentions are reasonable (e.g., you have no reason to believe I'm just fucking around), then you are legally entitled to wipe the floor with me. That much I'm pretty sure.
I'm not saying it was smart of the guy to bull rush him. I, myself, would have complied hoping someone was watching.
But we weren't there and God knows those two dudes look like they are right out of central casting for Deliverance and he's a black kid in Ga. and these two hillbilly-looking mother fuckers are following him in a pick-up truck and then approach him with guns. From a distance at least, it's like a scene out of Mississippi Burning (great movie, btw) for Christ's sake.
I agree with you. It has all the tragedy of the Trayvon Martin matter. Keep your fucking gun at home and call the fucking cops. If someone is missing another yard ornament, WFAF.
Another case where a jury is required to do the impossible task of reading minds, one of which is dead. Quickly switches to "What would I have done in that situation?" While regrettable that the son took the shotgun out of the truck while dad was already holding & aiming, I'm trying to find 1 person out of twelve who will say, as the jogger, "I would've bull-rushed the guy holding the shotgun - to Defend myself."
How the hell do you get 12 jurors to feel the same way, given that video?
Murder guys? Really?
Murder 2 at the very least and a hate crime to boot.
Without the release of the video do they get charged?
Nope.
Pretty amazing that it was video that their boy took that did them in.
You can't chase a dude down with a gun then act surprised and claim self defense when there's a struggle for the gun.
There was an attempt at self defense but it wasn't by the two who are still alive.
I can't see how running towards a loaded gun is self-defense. It might work in the movies, but Jason Bourne isn't real.
Real life is different, as this video shows.
The defense is going to argue that anyone who goes at a guy who's legally holding a loaded gun shows a dangerous intent on the part of the victim in this case. And, in all likelihood, it's going to stick with a couple jurors.
I'm not proud of it at all, but this is a very Trayvon type situation here. And to me, that case is a tragedy of epic proportions, but not surprising.
It'll be an interesting legal strategy to say the least. When you're in apprehension of imminent physical harm, what you're legally allowed to do to other human beings changes drastically. At least as I recall from Crim Law. Not my area, but if someone pulls a gun on you in a situation that you did not initiate ... I just wonder if it's as simple as citizen's arrest law. You have to review the facts.
Yeah, he may be legally holding a weapon, but is that how it works? Is it that simple? If you're trimming your bushes at home and I approach with a loaded gun pointed at you and the circumstances are such that you know I'm not there for a game of chess ... all you know is that I've got a live gun pointed at you, are you expected to concern yourself with my legal standing to do so?
This is why these laws are bullshit. If I approach you at a restaurant, and we don't know each other, and I motion like I'm going to jack you, and your assessment of my intentions are reasonable (e.g., you have no reason to believe I'm just fucking around), then you are legally entitled to wipe the floor with me. That much I'm pretty sure.
I'm not saying it was smart of the guy to bull rush him. I, myself, would have complied hoping someone was watching.
But we weren't there and God knows those two dudes look like they are right out of central casting for Deliverance and he's a black kid in Ga. and these two hillbilly-looking mother fuckers are following him in a pick-up truck and then approach him with guns. From a distance at least, it's like a scene out of Mississippi Burning (great movie, btw) for Christ's sake.
I agree with you. It has all the tragedy of the Trayvon Martin matter. Keep your fucking gun at home and call the fucking cops. If someone is missing another yard ornament, WFAF.
Another case where a jury is required to do the impossible task of reading minds, one of which is dead. Quickly switches to "What would I have done in that situation?" While regrettable that the son took the shotgun out of the truck while dad was already holding & aiming, I'm trying to find 1 person out of twelve who will say, as the jogger, "I would've bull-rushed the guy holding the shotgun - to Defend myself."
How the hell do you get 12 jurors to feel the same way, given that video?
Murder guys? Really?
Murder 2 at the very least and a hate crime to boot.
It's the running toward and grabbing of the gun that's going to hang this jury up. I can't see 12 people agreeing that running toward, grabbing, punching a guy several times and fighting for possession of a shotgun wasn't a threat to the man with the gun, who has a right to defend himself.
I agree they provoked the confrontation and bear responsibility for escalating and turning the situation deadly, but I can't reconcile why the dead kid goes after the gun. And I think a handful of jurors are likely to get hung up on that.
Comments
100% murder.
If the law determines that it wasn't murder than the law needs to be changed.
Responsibility is completely on the shooters in this case. You initiate a confrontation and do so while brandishing a loaded weapon you assume responsibility for what happens from there. i
This shouldn't be complicated.
Not just the law, but the facts a jury finds are key and 12 must agree. That agreement thing is the catch.
https://newsone.com/3940390/ahmaud-arbery-armed-black-protesters-patrol-georgia-neighborhood/
They should fry.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/us/mcmichaels-hearing-ahmaud-arbery/index.html
@Swaye is usually satisfied with a White Devil label and a Scalp. This time he's going full Comanche on your Ass. Rawhide, Red Ants and everything.
Seems your stupidity crossed the wrong Injun this time. Every man, white or red, has his Limits and you've obviously exceeded.
I agree they provoked the confrontation and bear responsibility for escalating and turning the situation deadly, but I can't reconcile why the dead kid goes after the gun. And I think a handful of jurors are likely to get hung up on that.