So....Ahmaud Arbery....

Clem72

Well-Known Member
They would have been much better off taking his picture and following him until police arrived if they believe he committed a crime. Chasing someone with a gun on the possibility they committed a non-violent crime is a no-no (unless you are an on duty cop of course, then follow SOP and blast 'em).
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
In a moral world the lawyer for these three shitbags would present the facts, plead them guilty, and let the chips fall where they may. Instead we have lawyers twisting themselves into pretzels trying to say that three guys who shot a man they were chasing were acting in self-defense.

:crazy:

This is why people hate lawyers.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Yeah it's kinda hard to claim self defense when you have a gun and the other guy is unarmed , now if he had gotten the gun away from the son and the dad shot him the narrative would be somewhat different.

... to say that three guys who shot a man they were chasing were acting in self-defense.




IIRC - in the state in question if someone attempts to ' disarm ' you or otherwise makes a play to grab firearm you have, the person with the weapon is allowed to defend themselves
 
Last edited:

phreddyp

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Kinda makes you wonder does the person being held at gunpoint have the right to disarm the guy with the gun and then waste him ?
 

Bare-ya-cuda

Well-Known Member
Chances are even if the 3 scum did not murder him he would have still ended up where he is. The cops would have been called, he would have resisted and fought back and the cops would have shot him.
 

Kyle

Ultra-MAGA
PREMO Member
Chances are even if the 3 scum did not murder him he would have still ended up where he is. The cops would have been called, he would have resisted and fought back and the cops would have shot him.
Yes, but then there would have been a celebratory violent street party and CVS/Target Fire Sale.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
IIRC - in the state in question if someone attempts to ' disarm ' you or otherwise makes a play to grab firearm you have, the person with the weapon is allowed to defend themselves

When the person with the weapon is the aggressor that law doesn't apply. That's like saying some thug holds you at gunpoint while robbing you, and if you try to get his gun from him he can shoot you in self-defense. Nope.

The lawyer is trying his damnedest to come up with something but whaddaya gonna do with a case like that? If it were me I'd advise them to plead guilty and accept their punishment.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
IIRC - in the state in question if someone attempts to ' disarm ' you or otherwise makes a play to grab firearm you have, the person with the weapon is allowed to defend themselves
And I would think that was true at the time of the event. Especially since GA had that citizen's arrest statute that allowed them to attempt to arrest Arbery. Probably why they recently changed the law.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
And I would think that was true at the time of the event. Especially since GA had that citizen's arrest statute that allowed them to attempt to arrest Arbery. Probably why they recently changed the law.

There is no law made that some clever criminal and their lawyer can't manipulate and exploit, so I hope the GA legislature has fun with that.

These yahoos didn't see a crime committed, so as far as the law is concerned they chased down a random guy, attempted to detain him, and when he refused to be detained they shot him. If the "citizen's arrest" and "self-defense" defense holds, that means you can shoot people for free in Georgia. Just say you were making a citizen's arrest and the suspect resisted.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
... attempted to detain him, and when he refused to be detained they shot him.


he made a grab for the shotgun .... they did not ' just shoot ' Abery


Bullsht ..... these claims will always be evaluated ..... especially with Burn Loot Murder rioting so much
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
he made a grab for the shotgun .... they did not ' just shoot ' Abery

While they were accosting him and threatening him with it, you left out that part.

So yeah, they did "just shoot" Arbery. They chased him down, caught him, threatened him, and shot him. That's exactly what happened and if you think something else happened you're wrong. I don't play lawyer reindeer games and I get annoyed with people who do.

It always boggles my mind when something is absolutely crystal clear, yet someone wants to argue about it. Like that guy who attacked a woman and her children, and when the boyfriend came out to defend them the guy shot him and tried to say it was self-defense. And there were people - on here even - who agreed with that ridiculous story. The good news is that the jury saw what was plainly in their face and sent the psycho away for awhile.
 

Smokey1

Well-Known Member
While they were accosting him and threatening him with it, you left out that part.

So yeah, they did "just shoot" Arbery. They chased him down, caught him, threatened him, and shot him. That's exactly what happened and if you think something else happened you're wrong. I don't play lawyer reindeer games and I get annoyed with people who do.

It always boggles my mind when something is absolutely crystal clear, yet someone wants to argue about it. Like that guy who attacked a woman and her children, and when the boyfriend came out to defend them the guy shot him and tried to say it was self-defense. And there were people - on here even - who agreed with that ridiculous story. The good news is that the jury saw what was plainly in their face and sent the psycho away for awhile.

Sorry but you are wrong here. No matter the circumstances if a person tries to physically take a gun from another person the only recourse is to shoot the person trying to take the gun because you know they will shoot you with it if they get it.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Sorry but you are wrong here. No matter the circumstances if a person tries to physically take a gun from another person the only recourse is to shoot the person trying to take the gun because you know they will shoot you with it if they get it.

No, I am not wrong. I can't even imagine why you would say something so foolish. :razz:

THEY were the aggressors, not Arbery. They went after him and he was trying to get away. Put yourself in the situation:

You're jogging along and three guys start yelling at you and chasing you.
You run from them.
They get in a truck and come after you.
They catch you and hold a gun on you.
You try to take the gun from them and they shoot you dead.

Were they just acting in self-defense?

I can't explain it any simpler than that, so anyone who still wants to believe that these yahoos were acting in self-defense it's exactly that - they WANT to believe it. And they're wrong.
 

Smokey1

Well-Known Member
No, I am not wrong. I can't even imagine why you would say something so foolish. :razz:

THEY were the aggressors, not Arbery. They went after him and he was trying to get away. Put yourself in the situation:

You're jogging along and three guys start yelling at you and chasing you.
You run from them.
They get in a truck and come after you.
They catch you and hold a gun on you.
You try to take the gun from them and they shoot you dead.

Were they just acting in self-defense?

I can't explain it any simpler than that, so anyone who still wants to believe that these yahoos were acting in self-defense it's exactly that - they WANT to believe it. And they're wrong.

I don't believe the scenario you cited is accurate. In any case whether the men were right or wrong it would be suicidal to let the guy get the gun from the other man. We all have a right to self defense.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I don't believe the scenario you cited is accurate. In any case whether the men were right or wrong it would be suicidal to let the guy get the gun from the other man. We all have a right to self defense.

The scenario I cited is accurate - it's what happened, boiled down to actual events with no spin.

So you're saying that if a pack of strange men start chasing you with a gun, and catch you, and you try to disarm them, they have a right to shoot you dead because they're only defending themselves? Because that's what it sounds like.

You know these guys weren't cops, right? One of them had a cousin's boyfriend's uncle or something that was a cop, but none of these guys were law enforcement nor did they see the victim commit any crime.
 

Clem72

Well-Known Member
Sorry but you are wrong here. No matter the circumstances if a person tries to physically take a gun from another person the only recourse is to shoot the person trying to take the gun because you know they will shoot you with it if they get it.

Smokey, you should really put IANAL on your posts because you give the worst legal advice. You cannot claim self defense if you are the aggressor and especially not if you are committing a crime (like chasing someone with a gun). I believe the only instance where you may be able to claim defense is if the other party escalated the situation, as in you punch them and they pull a gun on you.
 
Top