Thanks, I think you are too.
General Thoughts on Georgia shooting?
- Thread starter Thuglife13
- Start date
But it does imo, thats a very very basic rule of firearms. Just my opinion.
He does look like a fucking moron though, but being dumb doesn't mean you get to kill people while pretending to be dad.
I don't think he intended to have the guy yank on his gun. That could very well be the reason the gun went off. If the son had his finger on the trigger and the guy yanked on the gun, they are both responsible for the gun being fired.
Again, at that point the son is in a fight for his life just as much as the guy. We don't know who initiated contact. The video doesn't show that. The video doesn't show anyone pointing a gun at the guy prior to the struggle. It is legal to posses a gun. From what can be seen in the video, the son had his shotgun pointed downward.
If he wanted to shoot the guy, he could have raised his gun up while the guy was running up toward the back of his truck and shot him. He was well within range. And the father's handgun was in its hostel on his hip. Nobody was pointing a gun at the guy while they were in view of the video.
T
The Big Guy
Guest
Your acting like a child and diminishing the value of jogger lives
The son initiated the fight for his life by pretending to be his dad in his glory days. Therefore he doesn't have a right to self defense imo.
Example: I can't walk up to my nosy neighbor, point a gun in his face because he's nosy, and then shoot him because he tried to take the gun away from me. I don't have a right to self defense there, I initiated the contact illegally.
First off *ur
Second off, now you sound like my wife, telling me I'm a child.
Third off, he's not a cat, he only has 1 life.
T
The Big Guy
Guest
This is the critical piece of evidence to me. No matter what happened before, the life or death struggle over the gun was initiated by arbery.
Again, there is no evidence the son pointed a gun in anyone's face.
You guys are arguing over whether jogger guy committed a crime or not.
It doesn't matter.
The law doesn't talk about that in regards to citizens rest as a defense against prosecution.
The law specifically talks about the knowledge of the individuals who attempt a citizen's arrest.
In their own words they went after him because of seeing him on video in the past and he was running by the house that day. They had no immediate knowledge of a crime being committed.
It doesn't matter.
The law doesn't talk about that in regards to citizens rest as a defense against prosecution.
The law specifically talks about the knowledge of the individuals who attempt a citizen's arrest.
In their own words they went after him because of seeing him on video in the past and he was running by the house that day. They had no immediate knowledge of a crime being committed.
You don't get to try to stop people running, with a gun. The gun implies a use of force that isn't legal in this instance, imo.
Yea, what
@Splinty said.
Edit: damn phone.
T
The Big Guy
Guest
Incorrect. Your allowed to open carry. You can open carry while planting rose bushes or while standing outside your truck. Also while asking someone to stop running.
Also somebody (mcmichaels) could reasonably believe the guy running away from the guy on the phone with police had committed a crime. Especially if someone previously seen them inside people's houses. Its completely reasonable.
And if the cuck construction family didnt want any "vigilante" justice why were the neighbors aware of the nighttime "jogging" video? Just brought it up to say "look we had another jogger last night"
Yea, they did more than open carry imo. If they had it slung on their back or something like that I would agree with you.
He has no first hand knowledge of a felony being committed, and one wasn't so he should not be protected by the citizens arrest laws.
Showing people a video doesn't = wanting the person shot and killed when nothing was stolen, ever.
So can I citizens arrested a crack dealer at gun point and if he lunges at me I can claim self-defense and shoot him? Pretty sure selling crack is a felony, right,?
Depends on your states laws I guess.
Let's say Florida? Pretty sure here in Kansas I'm good.
Try it out.
T
The Big Guy
Guest
1. There is no law that says it needs to on their back. So that's your opinion.
2. He could reasonably believe a burglary had taken place. Guy seen previously on footage inside a dwelling at night is running past with a neighbor behind him standing in the street calling police.
3. "Showing people a video doesn't = wanting the person shot and killed when nothing was stolen, ever." No but it shows concern for the property.
As best I can tell this is the reality so far.
People arguing that they have a right to open carry is a moot point.
No evidence that the citizens arrest was legal. Their own statement suggests that it is illegal.
It is their own claim that they were attempting a citizen's arrest. they were not just standing by watching with open carry. Instead they were open carrying while attempting to detain somebody illegally.
Arbery moves to the right side of a vehicle. To claim that he initiated the confrontation against the gunman who is attempting an illegal detainment requires a significant amount of ignoring that again this was an illegal detainment attempt in the first place. Maybe some new information will come out but first explanations of motivations on the day of the the events seem like they would be most accurate.
If you remove the citizens arrest (motive that came from their own statements) and state that they were simply defending themselves with legal open carry while attempting a passive standing in public to have a conversation...(are you seeing how many things you have to ignore to get to that?) then you are left with the shotgun man moving from his side of the vehicle to confront arbery and arbery moving from the right side of the vehicle to confront the gunman...after arbery moves to Right side of the vehicle in order to avoid the gunman standing in his path. So even if you remove the citizens arrest aspect that seems very suspect with the current evidence, you have video of an unarmed man attempting to avoid an armed man. You have an armed man and an unarmed man then come into contact with each other at best due to both of their approaches. The background context added back includes an illegal detainment and an attempt by the unarmed man to avoid confrontation with the armed man.
I just don't see a jury siding with some sort of stand your ground defense when the armed man approached as well. If he had stood there in arbery ran straight forward, that argument would be in play. Same with arbery moving from right back to left with No other movement by the gunman. But once the gunman circled around the front of the vehicle, he is surely as guilty (more due to the previous attempt by unarmed man to avoid conflict???) in escalating the violence that lead to a death.
I think redneck Batman and Robin are screwed
All you have to do is find me a statement from the father or son on the day of the events showing they were aware of this.
you keep adding extra details that are not in the police report or any statement so far.
They saw him running down the street and he was on video in the past. That's the evidence so far.
T
The Big Guy
Guest
We know who will be doing the running