This thread was on fire for weeks back when this happened. I'm certain the responses to your post already exist, probably more than once, somewhere in the previous 779 posts...
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Two Weapons, a Chase, a Killing and No Charges: A 25-year-old man running through a Georgia neighborhood ended up dead
- Thread starter Reptile
- Start date
This thread was on fire for weeks back when this happened. I'm certain the responses to your post already exist, probably more than once, somewhere in the previous 779 posts...
Roadglide
NES Member
Wasn't asking you
Okay... But you were posting in a thread where this was already hashed out. Ad nauseam. You're late to the party, apparently.
Try Post #341, among others, and the posts that follow it. If you think anyone replying to your post is going to come up with anything new now, you're probably going to be disappointed.
He was replying to and quoted a comment made yesterday.
I get that. I also get that yesterday's comment had also been covered before in this thread, several times.
Know what? Wanna rehash this case again? Feel free, lol. I'm sure it'll end up as bitter and inconclusive as it did the last time.
Roadglide
NES Member
Ok I’ll be sure to ask your permission next time I post
It's fine. I should have kept my mouth shut. It's just going to turn into a thread full of dupes.
Roadglide
NES Member
I don’t mean to sound like a dick but my question wasn’t to you. The op could have responded and we could have had a brief discussion. But you want to be nes mall cop and move the discussion around to suit you. Stay the F out of it next time. Now we have definitely derailed the topic because you got involved
Y’all need a coke and a smile lol
Roadglide
NES Member
Back to back doubles make me cranky
![[laugh2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/014.gif "Laugh at above [laugh2]")
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,490
- Likes
- 33,487
Actually, they are not.
Introduction of similar aggressive acts on the part of the target of an action claimed as self defense can serve to help the jury determine the veracity of the defendant's claim. We are not talking about proof as would be in the case if the past acts were used against a defendant, but allowing a defendant to use all available information in his defense. The prosecution often argues FOR inclusion of past acts, particularly in cases like Weinstein where unproven past allegations are used against the defendant. They are playing the game to win, not maximize the chance at arriving at the truth.
Suppose someone is on trial for defending against a person twice their size and the defense claim is "The defendant fired in self defense because this person told him he was going to beat him up then rectally rape him with the toilet plunger he is carrying", but the shootee's attorney argues "He was bringing it home because he is a big guy and wanted it near his toilet because he's been constipated and worried about exceed flush capacity". The aggressor has a record for penetrating people with a toilet plunger. Would excluding that information increase or decrease the chances that the jury would come to an accurate conclusion as to the credibility of the defendant's claim?
Last edited:
Let's not confuse the case with facts... Definitely not with the fact that Armed Robbery took a 90* turn and rushed a few yards to attempt to disarm him.
KBCraig
NES Member
You mean after the man with the gun had already been chasing and threatening lethal force?
Roadglide
NES Member
Its a big stretch to threaten lethal force to gain compliance of an individual suspected of a crime to being on trial for murder and hate crimes. It was an all encompassing shit show but I'd argue the guy would still be alive had he not try to fight the guy with the gun. No way you can convince me they intended to kill the guy. The optics surrounding this case are awful, no doubt. A few hillbilly types hunt down and dust off an innocent black man minding his own business out for a leisurely jog. That is all the public and jury will hear and these three will become political sacrificial lambs.
Just curious, if two guys with guys in their hands and pointing at you, and yelling at you, chase you in a truck, get in front of you and then exit the truck with gun in hand, what would you think they intend to do to you? Be honest.
Roadglide
NES Member
My personal experience of once having a gun pointed at me leads to my personal opinion that in most cases (not all) when a person threatens you with words they're not really serious. Now I understand how all situations are different and that logic could get me into trouble some day. But in my experience if the guy who pointed the gun at me wanted me dead he wouldn't have talked about it. I would have never seen it coming and we wouldn't be talking right now. Seems to me the victim was given two choices. My personal opinion is he made the wrong one.
Wow, so a gun pointed at you and being threatened that you will be killed, and you don't feel threatened! Sorry dude, I don't believe you.
And you are right, the victim had 2 choices flight or fight, he had already tried flight, they chased him in the truck, so that leave fight. Was it the right choice, we'll never know. But was it a justified choice, yes it was.
And one personal experience to most cases is a pretty big leap. And irrelevant, since all that mattered was, did the victim feel his life was threatened.
Roadglide
NES Member
You asked I answered. What you believe about my personal experiences means exactly shit to me. Going off of what us peons know about this case I'm sticking with they had no intention of murdering the guy and he probably would still be alive if he didn't push it
This is what we figured out last time we went through this here.
The lunge for the gun was not just one separate act. It was the culmination of several acts, each one seemingly designed to make Arbery feel more and more threatened.
I’d have felt threatened, too.
Would a reasonable person have done what Arbery did? I think it’s likely. Would a reasonable person have done what the shooters did? I think it’s unlikely.
The “reasonable person standard” matters in legal cases.
I disagree about what was intended, but ultimately that doesn't matter since intent isn't necessary, only what the victim could reasonably conclude. The act of assault does not require intent, it is based on what the victim perceives.
Roadglide
NES Member
The intent part we have to agree to disagree. The rest I see your point because you look at it from a legal standard (which usually wins out, but doesn't make it right) where I look at it from a more practical common sense POV.
Roadglide
NES Member
If you look at it from the specifics of guy #1 points a gun at guy #2 and says stop or I'll shoot and guy #2 tries to take the gun away from guy #1 then I feel you have it backwards. But given that the whole thing was shit storm of epic proportions from start to finish we may never know either way. All parties involved should have never crossed paths. Just reinforces my philosophy of stay off of the radar and mind your own f***ing business
babygorilla
NES Member
Three choices. Stop. Raise hands. Wait for the police.
babygorilla
NES Member
100% disagree. As a reasonable person, who was innocent, in a heavily populated area, I would surrender. Especially if armed idiots are yelling at me to stop, but they ain't pointing a firearm at me. Find out what they wanted me to stop.
Fortunately, what you or I think doesn’t matter at all. Soon enough, there‘ll be a jury that gets to figure it out.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,490
- Likes
- 33,487
FIFY
The contortions people go through on this board to justify this amaze me. I would think most here have an LTC.
You have an LTC. You're carrying. 3 guys you've never seen before, obviously not police, chase you down in two vehicles, hit you with a vehicle, then exit, armed. And you would simply surrender? I would fear for my life, and I'm playing "refuse to be a victim" (®NRA) even if my chances aren't great. If I survive, I'm pretty sure it's a good shoot, even here in MA.
If Arbery had been carrying he would have been justified as well. He wasn't so he tried the best he could. If you were and think you would surrender you might as well flush your LTC down the toilet, self defense doesn't mean anything to you.
You have an LTC. You're carrying. 3 guys you've never seen before, obviously not police, chase you down in two vehicles, hit you with a vehicle, then exit, armed. And you would simply surrender? I would fear for my life, and I'm playing "refuse to be a victim" (®NRA) even if my chances aren't great. If I survive, I'm pretty sure it's a good shoot, even here in MA.
If Arbery had been carrying he would have been justified as well. He wasn't so he tried the best he could. If you were and think you would surrender you might as well flush your LTC down the toilet, self defense doesn't mean anything to you.
babygorilla
NES Member
True.
Similar threads
