You said before. You, and jury can be wrong. I suspect you would believe the Dred Scott decision was wrong, as I certainly do.
3 Likes
Really? A couple dudes race on ahead of you in a truck, cut off your possible exit, brandish a shotgun and order you to stop - youâre saying âhe could have just kept on runningâ. Thatâs some serious Monday morning quarterbacking. If Iâm in that position, Iâm thinking âNever get in the van., These crazy dudes are either going to shoot me in the back, or tie me up and do who knows what? Iâm not going out like that.â Could have just kept on running, Yeah, but for how many steps?
7 Likes
They chased him down in a truck. He was already running, or at least jogging, and they obviously caught up to him. You expect him to keep running? So they can shoot him in the back?
3 Likes
It seems you did not watch the video. He ran toward the truck, then off the road, where he could have continued in that direct. He chose, instead, to run around the front of the truck, in an attempt to get behind the man with the shotgun, then attack him. No quarterbacking needed, just simple eyesight.
Why not, he was only âout for a jogâ, right? When he ran off the road to the right, there was nobody, nor the truck, there to impede his âjoggingâ. Would you choose to assault someone, or try to avoid the conflict? We are taught to avoid conflict, not initiate it.
1 Like
I watched the video. My point is that those who say, âHe could have just continued running off the roadâ seem to be implying that was a guaranteed path to safety. Why didnât he just ignore those men in the truck who blocked the road and started yelling with a shotgun? âJust keep jogging, man, all would have worked out fine.â Maybe the shotgunner said âstop, or Iâll shootâ?
Imagine youâre in a part of town you realize you fâd up and shouldnât be in and some gangster rolls up with a gun pointed at you threatening who knows what. You going to just ignore him, or try to deftly pull your own handgun and fight back? If you donât have an external weapon, are you going to just get down on your knees and pray for the best?
5 Likes
Watch the video. It was just a suburban neighborhood, not a âbadâ area. Also, the man with the shotgun was not branishing it, and not a âgangsterâ - watch the video. You can argue straw men, but the video is reality.
1 Like
Did I say bad area? Use a little imagination here.
Pretend youâre a petty thief, been getting away with home burglaries for years, in broad daylight mostly because thatâs when no-oneâs home Your victims sometimes report the thefts to the police, but they never catch you; theyâve bigger fish to fry,. One day youâre casing your next score, and ⊠some cats roll up on you - they know what youâve been up to and they mean business. In fact, you know their grandmaâs house just got robbed last week.
What do you think your prospects are if you just keep running? How about if you let them tie you up?
2 Likes
No, I will stick with the facts as shown in the video.
Would that happen in a âgoodâ neighborhood? You are grasping at straws.
Are they stray cats, the Stray Cats, alley cats, barnyard cats, field cats, domesticated cats? It makes a difference how one might react. Though the only cats I know walk on four legs, so, unless, like my wifeâs cat when it wants attention, plops on the floor and rolls around at your feet, it is unlikely that a cat would âroll up on youâ.
So now you are calling the decedent a criminal? Can you be any more bigoted than you have appeared in your comments so far?
This case and overall thread has opinions / guesstimations / alleged evidence ranging from âhis only crime was being black in the wrong neighborhoodâ, to âhe was a known prowler which creates reasonable suspicion that his only reason for entering that dwelling was intent to steal something, which equals burglary, which is a crime, which if reading the statute correctly, makes it unclear whether the right for a citizenâs arrest existed, and if unclear, should always be interpreted in favor of the citizen, so the judge instructed the jury incorrectly that both a felony offense AND 1st hand knowledge was requiredâ.
All Iâm saying is that âhe could have just kept on joggingâ could have seemed a much riskier option to Arbery than going for the guyâs shotgun.
1 Like
Good Conversations- Truck is faster than Humans- A bullet is faster than humans. We are talking about all the what if. This thread show empathy and tolerance. Nice to see we can have these types of conversations.
3 Likes
There is no âalleged evidenceâ there is video. Your opinion is only just that - there is video, aka facts, clearly opposing your opinion.
Which goes 100% against our training that states we should avoid conflict, not initiate it. Again, that is your opinion that is wholly against self-defense and situational awareness that would show that attacking is not an option when avoidance is the best option.
has no relevance in this case as that is not what the issue was about - it was strictly a self-defense issue, where the decedent attacked a man with a firearm and attempted to take the firearm from that person. That is exactly what happened when Rosenbaum attacked Rittenhouse and attempted to take his rifle - ruled correctly as self-defense.
1 Like
This crime is no different than the same old southern lynch mob mentality. Just like when a white woman would make up a lie and say a black man came on to her, and her husband and his buddies get the white mob together to go lynch the man. I donât see it any different. The racism of Georgia, the Carolinas all the way east to Texas continues to pass down the prejudices of their white great grand-parents. I once thought that after a couple generations it would be gone, but I was wrong. They continue to pass it on and on. Just like with Covid, they refuse to take the vaccine.
1 Like
Can I get you another can of paint? Youâre going to run out pretty quick with that broad brush.
Thatâs a long stretch⊠unless maybe you meant âwest.â
2 Likes
The alleged evidence to which I was referring are statements from sources who say that Armery was a known burglar / known criminal to those who were not letting him escape. The video does not oppose my opinion. The video shows that there was terrain that was not road, for all of us to see that was not blocked by a truck. My opinion is that if I were a police officer or ex-police officer, and Monday morning quarterbacking, I would be highly likely to think he would have been fine or at least not dead if he surrendered peacefully or had kept on jogging. My opinion is also that if I were the âjoggerâ, I can imagine a number of scenarios combined with whatever the exact context was at the truck that I can calmly not in the heat of the moment rationalize going for the gun as my least bad choice.
Interpreting the statute correctly has 100% relevance to this case. In fact, itâs the entire case. If they were within their rights to go after and try to prevent Arbery from escaping, itâs self defense for them (or at least has a chance to be). If they werenât, then it wasnât. The judge basically instructed the jury that the statute says the defendants needed first hand knowledge of a felony to have been within their rights for the pursuit and attempted detainment. He read the statute to them as written, and then added his interpretation as fact. At that point, if Iâm a typical juror (i.e. one who the system is confident is unaware of jury nullification), and Iâm only aware of that particular video evidence (i donât know what other evidence and testimony there was), I see a guy who died in the act of defending himself against multiple unlawful attackers, at least one of which was armed with a shotgun. Iâd need more evidence to conclude malice by the attackers, though, and I really donât see how the 3rd guy following / filming gets life also (if malicious intent is required with the murder for life ). I understand that if drive my friend to the liquor store, and he dies trying to rob it, I get charged with murder. If I knew he planned to rob it and good chance of murdering the cashier, then yes; otherwise, I donât see how the malice applies to me if I didnât know, even if he confesses to the police afterwards that was his intention all along.
How dare you compare covid to racism! I really donât need CNN propaganda channeled on this forum. Blocked!
2 Likes
The only similarity is one person attempted to take the weapon from another.
- Rittenhouse didnât attempt to engage Rosenbaum in any manner prior to the shooting
- Rosenbaum made a verbal death threat, then laid in wait, trying to ambush Rittenhouse
- Rittenhouse knew Rosenbaum was part of a violent mob
- All of this was confirmed by witnesses in the trial
The jurors correctly ruled that a reasonable person in Rittenhouseâs place had reasons to fear for their life.
By comparison, - Shooters initiated contact with Arbery, attempted to detain him
- Arbery was where he had a right to be, and was not committing a crime
- Defendants had not met Arbery before, did not witness him committing any crime, their suspicions non-withstanding.
Jurors correctly ruled murder.
It was reported in the press, Arbery was no stranger to cops. This does not matter to the court, because defendants didnât know him. If you want a situation with a good deal of similarity, it would be NFAC demanding reparations from drivers leaving Georgia state park, while brandishing rifles. If a driver stepped out of the car and was shot by a goon - would you grant the goon self-defense consideration?
I was thinking that, too. Iâm not bothered that two people can look at the same video and see different things. Thatâs why we have juries of (allegedly) normal people to decide cases.
I think the biggest lesson from this whole case is whether or not to get involved when you suspect something isnât right. One of these 3 men had been a police officer, so he had that background, and yet things still went sideways. All because of what, a stranger in the neighborhood? Doesnât pass the âshark tankâ test, to me.
Iâm not the most creative person in the world, but I probably could come up with a better idea that making a citizenâs arrest, especially because weâve had months to Monday-Morning-Quarterback this story. If I thought I had to get involved, it would be relatively easy to get some pictures or video of the person I found suspicious. And this case also presents a good example of how introducing a firearm into a situation can escalate things. Only use it when required, and do your best to maintain a safe distance in all cases.
Feel free to continue the discussion. Iâm going to try to learn what I can from this story, but I donât think any of us here are going to affect the outcome of the trial.
2 Likes
Then you need to re-evaluate your situational awareness and ideas on what self-defense is. I know that it is not attacking someone when you have the opportunity to continue fleeing. As to the judgeâs statement and instructions to the jury, it is not like that has ever been wrong before, too. Also, innumerable innocent people have been convicted of crimes.
Not exactly, but you did mention differences that might or might not make any difference once we take into account the decedentâs attack on the man with the firearm. Once he attacked and tried to take the shotgun, it became a self-defense situation.
Showing your bigotry again. The âgoonsâ you mention, if I recall correctly, were not brandishing, nor threatening anyone with their firearms. I like how you prefer straw man arguments over video evidence, evidence even available in this event you mention. I donât recall the âgoonsâ threatening nor brandishing, but letâs not have facts get in the way. If the âgoonsâ were brandishing or threatening, you clearly know there would be no valid claim of self-defense. As the original topic, the video also shows no brandishing.