no. that means the attempted arrest was lawful.So if they prove he was breaking into people's shit and they guys saw him you will say free them?
So if its proven the stop was legal. That's a closed case imo because arbery is the one that initiated the struggle for the gun. Either way I'm at work so I won't be going back and forth with you all day. We argued the same points over and over alreadyno. that means the attempted arrest was lawful.
a court should still adjudicate if the force used was lawful
We most certainly did. Started off seeing BCs finest before heading south and hitting up 26 states. Amazing experience for us all and would've lasted longer but but lady who rented our house for herself murdered so we came home a little earlier than planned. Good to see you too. You seem to be in a much better place than before, I'm enjoying your positive change.@Nuk Soo Kow I have just been informed by my sources that you are the one whom watches the birds. Nice to see you, did you ever go glamping across america?
Ya man, I got the negativity out of my life and I'm not so damn miserable. Thanks for noticing my sunny disposition.We most certainly did. Started off seeing BCs finest before heading south and hitting up 26 states. Amazing experience for us all and would've lasted longer but but lady who rented our house for herself murdered so we came home a little earlier than planned. Good to see you too. You seem to be in a much better place than before, I'm enjoying your positive change.
i'll make a ridiculously hyperbolic theoretical...so if these guys are sitting on the front porch, and they see a 19 yo female jaywalk. They grab their guns, hop in their truck, and chase her down. She sees them and takes off running. They chase her down and yell, WAIT WE JUST WANNA TALK!!!...she keeps running until she's exhausted, her 'flight' instinct exhausted. She picks up a rock and throws it at the truck. They run her over, then they get out and shoot her in the chest because there are other rocks within arm's reach.So if its proven the stop was legal. That's a closed case imo because arbery is the one that initiated the struggle for the gun. Either way I'm at work so I won't be going back and forth with you all day. We argued the same points over and over already
Quit T-r-o-l-l-i-n-gi'll make a ridiculously hyperbolic theoretical...so if these guys are sitting on the front porch, and they see a 19 yo female jaywalk. They grab their guns, hop in their truck, and chase her down. She sees them and takes off running. They chase her down and yell, WAIT WE JUST WANNA TALK!!!...she keeps running until she's exhausted, her 'flight' instinct exhausted. She picks up a rock and throws it at the truck. They run her over, then they get out and shoot her in the chest because there are other rocks within arm's reach.
see what I'm getting at? not every use of force is justified.
And this victim didn't initiate the armed conflict, the guys in the trucks chasing him with guns initiated it. If he was exhausted and desperate, that doesn't make mean that the shooter was justified in killing, just because the victim tried to defend himself from the threat of imminent death.
i don't mean it like that, just want to point out that just because the attempt at an arrest was legal it doesn't mean that the force used was justified.
Use of force was justified after he made physical contact. But you already knew thati don't mean it like that, just want to point out that just because the attempt at an arrest was legal it doesn't mean that the force used was justified.
no, it doesn't work like that.Use of force was justified after he made physical contact. But you already knew that
Barnhill wrote that the McMichaels were within their rights to chase "a burglary suspect". Barnhill claimed that "Arbery initiated the fight", and that Travis McMichael "was allowed to use deadly force to protect himself" when "Arbery grabbed the shotgun".Barnhill wrote that Arbery had mental health issues and past prior convictions, which "help explain his apparent aggressive nature and his possible thought pattern to attack an armed man." Barnhill argued that Arbery might have caused the shotgun to fire by struggling over it, and he recommended that no arrests be made.no, it doesn't work like that.
it wasn't a self-defense situation. the shooter initiated the armed conflict. If the use of force wasn't justified (brandishing firearms and chasing, not calling LE), then what the victim did was self-defense.
Stupid, desperate self-defense.
i remember. we're still waiting to hear how they had immediate first-hand knowledge that the guy who ran past their yard was a burglary suspect.Barnhill wrote that the McMichaels were within their rights to chase "a burglary suspect". Barnhill claimed that "Arbery initiated the fight", and that Travis McMichael "was allowed to use deadly force to protect himself" when "Arbery grabbed the shotgun".Barnhill wrote that Arbery had mental health issues and past prior convictions, which "help explain his apparent aggressive nature and his possible thought pattern to attack an armed man." Barnhill argued that Arbery might have caused the shotgun to fire by struggling over it, and he recommended that no arrests be made.
GTFO
the younger white dude was an ex cop. he had dealings with the guy before. the black guy was seen on security cameras where burglaries had occured. they knew who they were watching out for and they found him.i remember. we're still waiting to hear how they had immediate first-hand knowledge that the guy who ran past their yard was a burglary suspect.
The older white guy is a former cop and DA investigator. His account is also the only witness account documented in the police report.the younger white dude was an ex cop. he had dealings with the guy before. the black guy was seen on security cameras where burglaries had occured. they knew who they were watching out for and they found him.
If and only if their initial use a force, stopping someone with a firearm, was warranted.Use of force was justified after he made physical contact. But you already knew that
Oh so these are the types of retards who leave guns in their trucks, not in a safe.......Just to reiterate, they brought guns with them because they had a gun stolen from their truck, and for whatever reason, they think it was him. They thought it was likely he was armed, so they armed themselves. Supposedly, they reported the gun theft to the police when it happened.
ObviouslyIf and only if their initial use a force, stopping someone with a firearm, was warranted.
Can you provide a source for this?the younger white dude was an ex cop. he had dealings with the guy before. the black guy was seen on security cameras where burglaries had occured. they knew who they were watching out for and they found him.
It was the older man but it's been posted multiple times that he was involved in the investigation of weapon on campusCan you provide a source for this?
Interesting, hadn't seen that.It was the older man but it's been posted multiple times that he was involved in the investigation of weapon on campus
he was also a former investigator for the DA.the younger white dude was an ex cop. he had dealings with the guy before. the black guy was seen on security cameras where burglaries had occured. they knew who they were watching out for and they found him.