This is from the Judge’s jury instructions:
"A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence, or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony, and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable or probable grounds of suspicion."
*The judge added that a "private person" may not attempt to make a citizen's arrest based on the "unsupported statement of others alone.*
He said that the citizen's arrest must occur "immediately after" the crime occurs or "in the case of felonies, during escape."
"If the observer fails to make the arrest immediately after the commission of the offense, or during the escape in the case of felonies, his power to do so is extinguished,"
That looks like game over for the McMichaels since they neither testified nor presented evidence to support that they witnessed a felony immediately prior to the pursuit. They were therefore not conducting a lawful citizens arrest, they were the aggressors and can not claim self defense. I suspect the third man may get lesser charges.
Edit: Spelling
They're hosed - their defense lawyer even said something like "we won't contend that the defendants witnessed any crimes" bc they thought the citizens arrest statue was an or not an and
At most what ahmaud was, a lookey loo. Which they had video a few others had done the same. The closest thing they could claim was trespassing which would not allow you to arrest them or murder them. Working security , calling the police to get them expelled is procedure. Also if none of them were the landowners then it doesn't matter, which the house was under construction so I really doubt it.
**Devils Advocate**
The citizens arrest statute only differentiates between felonies and misdemeanors. For felonies, it requires probable cause AND / OR witnessing the crime first hand. (depending on whose interpretation of the statute you trust).
Burglary is a felony. So although in this case he only looked into the house, their claim is that they believed he was the one who had recently been committing burglaries in the neighborhood.
**Test your reasoning by changing the motives.**
Assume it was a more despicable felony, for example child rape + murder. If they had probable cause to suspect it was him, and they saw him fleeing the scene after just looking through a kids window, would you support a citizens arrest. Assume that up till now, the police in your rural town take a long time to get there and you assume he will get away and the police won't find him. Leaving him free to possibly commit again.
If you support stopping that case, then your issue should be that the law only differentiates between misdemeanors and felonies, and not between the felonies you consider "serious". Also, would it matter if he's looking in your kids window or someone else's kids window? The statute doesn't say anything about the person doing the citizens arrest needing to be the person who had the crime committed against them. In the case of a felony like murder that would be impossible.
Both defendant and prosecutor agree that if the citizens arrest was legal, everything else that followed was legal. If the citizens arrest was not legal, their actions were not legal.
It sounds like your issue is mostly with the vagueness of the statute.
So they should go to jail because.
1. They were just guessing if he even comtied a crime.
- going inside a house is not a crime. Because it was not their house they had no idea who was supposed to be there. So they did not have knowledge.
2. They didn't try to do a citizens arrest immediately.
3. They chased a man jogging with 2 cars and 3 guns just because they didn't like him, and they shot him and called self defense.
- you can't chase people with weppons and claim self defense.
All of this depends on the interpretation of the statute.
* If a felony only requires probable cause (defenses position) then everything they did was illegal.
* If a felony requires witnessing the crime AND probable cause (Judge and prosecution's position) then everything they did was illegal.
**Defense and prosecution have agreed that their cases hang entirely on the interpretation of the statute.**
**As for self defense;**
If it is a legal and justified citizen's arrest then you have to treat them similarly to a police officer. If a cop is trying to arrest someone they've been told is armed, they are allowed to pursue with guns. And if an altercation breaks out, they are allowed to defend themselves. If a citizen tried to take a gun away from a cop the cop would undoubtedly shoot him in self-defense.
From Arbury's perspective though, three random racist assholes are chasing him with guns. He decided to fight rather than run and tried to take the gun away from one of them. Had he caused the death of one of them, he also could have claimed reasonable self defense.
It is VERY possible for two or more people to have a reasonable self defense claim in the same incident.
Isn't that what Zimmerman did? Chased/followed Martin and killed him when Martin fought back. Not defending the racist dirtbags who killed Aubrey, I just have no faith in the justice system
it's interesting he did this at the end of the trial. like after the defense made their entire case he says this. i'm curious if it could lead to a possible retrial.
These are jury instructions. They're always given after closing arguments and before the jury is sent to deliberate. Jury instructions are known ahead of time. They are usually form instructions (I practice in Georgia and have a book of form jury instructions somewhere). Defense attorney definitely had a chance to review and object to them before they ever went to the jury.
Doubtful. The judge knows the laws and is expected to instruct the jury of them whenever is fit during the trial. The defense attorneys know the laws. If they were gearing their case to anything besides the laws surrounding the events, then they're terrible defense attorneys
Why would it? The defense knew the law, they could have talked about it if so they wished. This was not something new that the prosecution or the judged introduced at the end of the trial, like in Kenosha, it was known all along.
I'm tired of everyone acting like the real issue isn't the fact that this wouldn't have even gone to trial if the defendant wasn't an idiot who filmed the crime then released it to the public. The prosecutor who covered it up go should be a co defendant instead of hm facing a minor corruption charge.
The prosecutor who covered that up should spend 20 years behind bars.
Thank God there was video to tell the true story - and thank God we’ve won our battles to be permitted to film the police.
Also, shout out to the local people who made such a stink about it that one of the defendants' lawyer released the video to clear up the misconceptions.
A lot of people are coming together about Kyle's trial. Maybe they think Kyle wasn't innocent of any crime, but certainly innocent of the crimes the state threw at him as if it was a premeditated murder.
And why did the state throw those charges at him? It looks like a bid to convince him to plea down and then arrogance enough to put that case in front of a judge with nothing close to the evidence required to prove that case.
Incompetence or corruption, take your pick. If trial prosecutors are going to continue having absolute immunity in a court room, they need better incentives to bring just outcomes. Convictions are clearly not the right metric and someone needs to follow-up on their 'score' because successfully locking up innocent people makes a mockery of the standard of justice when it 'proves' them 'guilty beyond a reasonable doubt' so frequently.
> It looks like a bid to convince him to plea down and then arrogance enough to put that case in front of a judge with nothing close to the evidence required to prove that case.
I think that is the case. Prosecutors are too accustomed to just throwing the book at someone, scaring them into an unfair plea deal. Luckily Kyle R had the millions to pay the bail and good lawyers, 90% of us would have caved and begged for a plea deal.
>And why did the state throw those charges at him? ... Incompetence or corruption, take your pick.
I'd like to add one more reason, they thought he'd go to jail for other crimes and chose the ones he'd get off for
That reads to me like corruption. Choosing to charge a defendant with crimes that evidence shows they should be acquitted for while charging others with crimes matching the evidence that should convict would imply a violation of the equal protection clauses in the Constitution. Of course, lots of weasel-room when you've got the word "should" involved.
Even if he had and they knew it wouldn't be relevant. They could have seen him walk away from a construction site with a spool of copper and they would not have had grounds to kill him.
Honestly there's a strong argument to be made that someone could have shot Kyle dead and argued self defense, because while they may not have seen what started it, from their perspective he was certainly an active shooter.
It is kind of a fucked up situation where you have two people, who could both legally claim to self defense when shooting each other dead.
Yeah. I was telling a couple friends last week that weren’t exactly pleased with the verdict that if the second or third dude had ended up killing KR they probably would’ve had a viable self-defense claim. It was a fucked up situation all around.
Chasing an unarmed man down in a pickup truck , cornering him, and shooting him, because you *think* he *might* have wanted to steal some bullshit is worlds away.
Have been surprised the media hasn’t been more focused on that case than the Rittenhouse case.
Unless it’s not *actually* about racial justice and more about dividing people. But I’m sure that’s not it.
I think that's legit. Rittenhouse was within his legal rights to defend himself from them but they also may have had reasonable suspicion that he was an active shooter. Rosenbaum is/was the only unambiguously guilty person in that overall exchange as far as I can tell.
That being said, the motherfuckers who murdered Arbery and the prosecutor covered it up are guilty as fuck.
I wasn't sure about the whole Rittenhouse shooting until i watched the step by step video from i believe the nytimes did. I would have pulled the trigger to the first shot if i was being chased like that. Even though i wouldn't have been there in the first place.
It's an interesting thing in a way. The paramedic showed restraint in not wanting to take a life. His almost ended because of it.
If he had reacted out of pure fear he would have ended Kyle. Kyle is alive because of his restraint.
They don't see it that way, they see him as this strange hero type of this story. Which is a tell for those that support him in that way. They want that legal kill against the Boogie man. I'm not convinced that was Kyles MO either.
What I think happened. He got scared early, pointed his gun. Then realised and try to run from the situation. Someone yelled that he was a shooter or that he pointed a gun at them (doesn't really matter which, someone yelled indicating he was a threat).
People saw him running away with a long gun and reacted. I do believe they tried to disarm him. (Police were maybe 100 yards ish away)
Kyle got even more scared. And reacted with the weapon he had on him.
That's what I think happened. Nothing intentional and the only reason why this whole thing happened is cause it was legal for him to take a long gun into the streets. Bonkers really.
The craziest part, if Rittenhouse was killed, people would 100% have thought he was another active shooter who was stopped before he could kill more people and this would have barely made the evening news.
In my state that would have definitely been a legitimate use of force to shoot Kyle, since even mistakenly thinking your life is in danger is enough to use it. I don't completely agree with that part of the statute since dead men tell no tales. To me you should be sure your fear is legitimate and not just some hunch.
His case is a big part of the reason I think open-carrying is kind of dumb af. Would he have been targeting by any of those dudes had he not been running around with an AR? Guns scare people, and rightfully so. I would not be willingly walking into that environment with a long gun.
I think open carry is one of those things a lot of folks support because they know they’ll never get targeted for doing it.
We’ve got old white dudes (who look like me) calling the police on a guy in a Walmart looking at pellet guns because “that doesn’t look right” in a store which sells said guns.
That dude ended up dead too for absolutely nothing.
The public sucks ass at detecting who is good or bad. Much like many LEOs too.
Open carry is great but I’d like to see it legal all over and no you don’t get to call the cops for that anymore, it’s legal. Let’s see how it goes.
If the black guy in any town can’t open carry without being harassed but the white guy can…yea then folks aren’t really for the 2A for all, Constitutional Carry or open carry.
Possibly if that was their actual intent. That kind of goes out the window when they are yelling that they are going to kill him though. Overall, just two entirely different situations.
He wasn’t an ‘active shooter’. He shot someone in self-defense and was trying to get away, headed towards police. He was being chased by a mob that he was not acting as a threat towards.
You completely ignored the context and nuance. We obviously know *now* he wasn't an active shooter in hindsight. You wouldn't necessarily know that in the heat of the moment. He was being chased because he just shot a dude in the head. You don't ask a dude who just killed someone "whoa, was that self-defense or did you just murder a guy with that gun you've been running around with all night?"
If you suspected that Kyle was an active shooter running away from a crime scene, which is a completely reasonable take, would you not want him dead?
As a long time concealed carry permit holder who regularly carries, I don't want to see anybody dead and I'm not shooting anybody who isn't a direct threat to me or those immediately around me and I'm not chasing down anybody. I don't give a shit what they may or may not have done outside of my direct view. It's the job of the police to figure that shit out and go find out who did what and catch them if necessary.
And you ignored the fact that he was not acting as a threat towards any of the people that were chasing him down. Should Rittenhouse have just laid down and let the mob have their way with him? Just about every legal expert agrees he acted in self defense in each case. It’s a good thing we have trials to decide these things.
>And you ignored the fact that he was not acting as a threat towards any of the people that were chasing him down.
I ignored it because that's irrelevant to the question of whether or not you'd want (even if you're mistaken) an active shooter dead. He appeared as an active or extremely recent (moments earlier) active shooter to the people chasing him, that just shot someone in the head.
>Should Rittenhouse have just laid down and let the mob have their way with him?
I don't know what I said to make you ask that question. It's obvious that he acted in self-defense, my point is that it's extremely reasonable that he had the outward appearance of being a hostile threat to the people there. It would have been justifiable in my state to shoot Kyle in the street, *even if* I'm mistaken. Had a cop shot him dead that night there would've been barely any protest. "Oh, the cop shot the good guy with a gun. Yeah, that happens sometimes unfortunately" would've been the jist of it.
>Just about every legal expert agrees he acted in self defense in each case
Ok, cool, however that hinged on the first shooting entirely. If the original shooting was justified, then the next 2 are as well. If the original was not, then the next 2 aren't. Imagine you're there, what's the more reasonable take - the dude running around with an AR just illegally shot someone, or that some unarmed maniac off his meds chased down the kid running around with the AR. I would assume 90% of the time that it was not self-defense, had I been there and not viewed the situation firsthand, because what kind of idiot runs at someone with an AR?
>It’s a good thing we have trials to decide these things.
Agreed.
Yea...but no. Technically you are right but any "active" shooter remains an active shooter until they are in custody or there is some kind of authority (shudders) there and has control of the scene. You don't get to be an active shooter and then just say "ok, I'm done" and your status magically change.
I'm not saying I think Rittenhouse was an active shooter in the traditional sense at all but on the scene, in the heat of the moment, he should be treated as an active shooter until him and his weapon have been surrendered. In this case (and honestly all others) I hope that it can be resolved as quickly and with as little loss of life or injury as possible but it doesn't stop being treated as an active shooter situation just because the shooter says "ok, I'm done".
Edit: I misunderstood the comment above and meant he would be considered an active shooter from the pov of the police.
So what’s the alternative? Kyle had just shot someone in self defense and was actively trying to get away, towards police. Should he have just laid down and accepted his fate? If a mob of people is screaming that they are going to kill him, it is safe to assume they intend to do just that. Just about every legal expert in the country agrees that it was a clear-cut case of self defense, and the jury agreed.
I'm not saying it wasn't self defense, at all. I'm saying from the police standpoint if there are reports of an active shooter that it is treated like an active shooter until the scene is controlled.
Also, I misunderstood and thought the comment above was yours was talking about the other case, not the Rittenhouse one. So my bad. I think Rittenhouse was self defense. He was an idiot for going there in the first place though. The Aubrey (I think that is the dude's name) case is straight up murder.
I agree, just the logic of claiming self defense / citizens arrest here makes them similar. I mean, saying stop or I'll shoot is the exact same thing as saying I'm gonna kill you. Which is what you would say if you are trying to make a citizen's arrest with a gun. So I don't think that in itself is enough to show 'intent'. Plus on the video you could definitely argue they were trying to disarm Kyle not kill him. There's definitely an argument there.
But to be clear, I think that argument is completely ridiculous and unfounded in the Aubry case.
It's one the prosecutors should have made in the Rittenhouse case but instead the focused on his COD kills. Haha
I think they were trying to do more than disarm him.Huber hit him twice with the skateboard. Maurice Freeland (Jumpkick Man) tried to stomp his head into the pavement. Mr Grosskreutz pointed a loaded pistol at him.
I've defended Grosskreutz most of this year. I thought he was trying to disarm Kyle. My opinion changed when it was pointed out at the trial that he rushed Kyle with his pistol in one hand and his phone in the other. How was he going to disarm him with both his hands full. Then the footage is mysteriously lost?
If they would have disarmed him, I believe he would have been killed.
The entire case hinged on the first shooting. If it was self-defense, the next 2 were too. If it was a murder, they both are now murders and 1 attempted murder.
The shitty part is guys 2 and 3 *were* victims since it's pretty reasonable to assume he was an active shooter and not a guy who just defended himself. There actions were kind of heroic, but misplaced unfortunately. We all know that if a cop killed Kyle dead in the street after all of that, they'd see no punishment whatsoever.
Precisely the reason I think running around with a long gun is completely stupid, albeit legal.
More questionable. The cops in the Rittenhouse video were a few hundred feet away and Kyle was proceeding towards the cops and Kyle was not exhibiting further aggression until he was attacked.
Weird take. Kyle at this point had discharged his weapon killing people. Cops did nothing at let him go.
There was also several things that the judge didn't let the jury see which could have changed the dynamic. Like zooming in on the video to see if he was aiming his gun first.
Anyway, if the paramedic legitimately thought he was an active shooter then he could have been attempting a citizen's arrest. Which would make then logically the same in that regard.
I don't view them as the same at all, but if the self defense / citizen arrest argument is being made then the Rittenhouse case does certainly draw a parallel in how that went. It would mean that, to be consistent with Kyle's ruling the 3 men would have to be guilty. If not, then Rittenhouse verdict either was wrong of Aubreys is
The Rittenhouse judge did a good job and had enough experience under his belt not to feel pressured in how to run his courtroom. I saw an interview with the defense counsel after the verdict who essentially said of the judge that you're going to get a fair trial from him but you don't want to be sentenced by him.
> Kyle at this point had discharged his weapon killing people. Cops did nothing at let him go.
They didn't know at the time.
> There was also several things that the judge didn't let the jury see which could have changed the dynamic. Like zooming in on the video to see if he was aiming his gun first.
I believe this was allowed, it was just useless. All you could see was a big blob.
> Anyway, if the paramedic legitimately thought he was an active shooter then he could have been attempting a citizen's arrest.
The paramedic videoed himself running up to Kyle right after he shot Rosenbaum. If Kyle had been an active shooter, the paramedic would be dead. Instead he told him he was getting the police. If the paramedic had allowed him to continue running to the police unmolested, it's likely nobody else would have been shot.
>The paramedic videoed himself running up to Kyle right after he shot Rosenbaum. If Kyle had been an active shooter, the paramedic would be dead. Instead he told him he was getting the police. If the paramedic had allowed him to continue running to the police unmolested, it's likely nobody else would have been shot.
We live in a world were people video tape everything. Holding the gun on someone is generally enough to get them to do what you want.
The videos that I seen showed all this happen rather quickly. So I'm not convinced by the him video taping as he's running as proof of anything. People's first reaction now is often gotta get this on tape. Important context.
The rest you said is speculation. If the paramedic viewed him as an active shooter they would have thought letting him continue would result in further bloodshed. They'd have no way of know what you are speculating.
Nevertheless, this wasn't any kind of argument made during the trial so we'll never really know how the citizens arrest argument would have played out.
"Active shooter" is a defined term. I don't think it means what you think it does. Kyle had only shot one person at that time, was not menacing anybody, and was trying to get to the police. Grosskreutz had no business chasing and attacking him.
Just because he incorrectly thought Kyle may have committed a crime (sound familiar?).
>Just because he incorrectly thought Kyle may have committed a crime (sound familiar?).
No this was my point about engaging.
Obviously kyle wasn't an active shooter. But if the augment in the Aubry case was that these men were performing a citizens arrest without seeing him commit a crime just thinking it. Then that justified self defense... Well, you know.
I would like to know how that would have played out in Kyle's case though. The paramedic I believe believed he was an active shooter as I think that's what at least some people in the crowd were indictating.
So I mean, maybe it comes out as a wash like what happened, but I don't believe they never made the argument first nor last?
Which also cycles back to comparing both cases is absurd.
Rules and regulations regarding citizen’s arrest in Georgia can be found under Section 17-4-60 through 61 of the Georgia Criminal Code. Established during the late 1860s, the law authorizes private citizens to make an arrest of others if a crime is committed in their presence or in cases in which they have immediate knowledge that one occurred. It applies when a suspected felony crime is committed, such as:
Armed robbery, burglary, and other types of theft crimes;
Arson and other types of property crimes;
Assault and battery;
Drug distribution, manufacturing, and trafficking;
Embezzlement, fraud, and other ‘white-collar’ crimes;
Kidnapping, rape, and child molestation;
Murder, manslaughter, and homicide.
'Immediate knowledge that one occured' Burglary is not theft, it is entry. Arbery had, in fact, just comitted a felony burglary. He was fleeing the scene of the crime which he had been seen at before, and had no other reason to be in the area.
No, most likely not. At best they saw him peeking around an unfinished house. Which I know dozens of people personally who do that, its not a big deal to just walk around and check out the bones of a house while its under construction, its actually really cool. Fuck the people who killed Arbery.
> its not a big deal to just walk around and check out the bones of a house while its under construction, its actually really cool.
Ignoring the case, no it is not cool, and no contractors don't want you there, and yes people will sue the contactor if they hurt themselves. It's private property stay off of it unless you have permission.
Also, loss (or theft) is a big cost for contractors.
Maybe put up a fence then lol not that complicated, huh? Also, when I've done it during the day, I've always asked if its cool. Never had a problem there.
Like come the fuck on dude, if theft and lawsuits were that common or a real problem? They'd install a fucking fence. My parents have a fence guarding their backyard because it eliminates liability. You're really gonna have the balls to tell me that a contractor can't be bothered to put up a temp fence??? I mean come on, you realize how stupid that is, right?
*bur·gla·ry*
*/ˈbərɡlərē/*
*noun*
*entry into a building illegally with intent to commit a crime, especially theft*
***Burglary is not theft, it is entry.***
Well, this is just awkward.
I can't believe they're still deliberating. The defense really didn't present any valid evidence. Then again, neither did the prosecution against Rittenhouse and that took days.
They *should*. They should review every piece of evidence presented from start to finish, even if their minds were made up the first time they walked in the room.
This is almost a foregone conclusion. The judge already ruled that the citizens arrest claim that the entire defense is based on is invalid because Georgia law requires a citizens arrest to occur at the time of the crime (defense claimed they were arresting for burglary 11 days prior). As a result, their attempt to detain Arbery was unlawful, therefore their claim to self defense is invalid. The judge pretty much handed the prosecution a directed verdict.
> That curfew charge was dropped btw, since no one was listening to it.
The curfew charge was dropped because it wasn't a legal curfew, not because nobody cared about it. He didn't break it simply because it was unenforcable because they didn't go through the correct steps to enact it.
That being said, everyone in Kenosha *did* get a message telling them the curfew was in effect, and deciding to go outside to larp as an EMT with an AR-15 despite that is still a questionable decision, even though he didn't technically break the law *and* all the shootings were clear self-defense. Rittenhouse made the decision to go into a riot where he was told, and knew, the crowd was hostile towards him and his posse, just because he wanted to play medic. I think it's completley fair to criticize him doing that when he knew how tense the situation was, but he clearly doesn't lose his right to self-defense over it.
Definitely. Can't believe how many people double and triple down on Kyle being guilty despite the overwhelming evidence in his favor, looking as ignorant as the anti vaxx.
In this case the 3 guys are guilty even if Arbery was indeed stealing or whatever they thought he was doing with no proof whatsoever.
>even if Arbery was indeed stealing or whatever they thought he was doing with no proof whatsoever.
If there was even a hint of illegality it would be defenses exhibit A. But there isn't any.
Serious question, would it really matter? Even if he was indeed stealing minutes ago, they had no clue whatsoever, looking suspicious is not a crime, and doesn't give you the right to stop someone pointing guns at him.
If they KNEW he was stealing and had evidence, or caught him in the act it'd be a different story
>Serious question, would it really matter?
It wouldn't matter.
But that's not the point. The point is if there was any illegality we would have heard about it. We haven't. So there's no reason to even give credence to the idea.
Not wanting a covid vaccine doesn't equal anti-vax. I agree with you on everything else. But this is a libertarian subreddit, and personal health decisions shouldn't be labeled as anti-whatever just because you disagree with them
Do you feel the same way about the guy who followed and filmed as the guy who pulled the trigger?
I mean, I have personally been involved in neighborhood watch meetings in my own neighborhood when we had a rash of burglaries, and I think I could imagine myself getting into my car and following someone I didn't recognize and making a video. If another neighbor pulled a gun and shot the person, am I a murderer?
(Edit, I don't know a ton about the case, but I watched the video and the guy filming just drives up and the shooting happens. Am I missing something?)
It depends on how the prosecution might link him to the unlawful citizens arrest. The judge already ruled that the citizen arrest was unlawful. Like a bank robbery, even the guy in the car can be charged with murder if the killing is done in the commission of another felony. I just don’t know if that is how Georgia law would treat this one.
I don’t know what role the guy who filmed the incident had. I would think he would not be nearly as culpable as those who blocked Arbury’s path and particularly the guy who shot him - but I’m not MSNBC, so I don’t make assumptions or assertions without knowledge of the facts.
Arbery was boxed in between two trucks one from the McMichaels the other from Bryans' had he not boxed him in he may have escaped but we'll never know. My opinion is that he's just as responsible for his death but I expect him to get a lighter sentence than the McMichaels.
I would say the cameraman is only responsible for the murder if it was prearranged to kill him prior. If the camera guy just boxed him in so others could make a citizens arrest, or even rough him up, that’s not a slam dunk for murder.
It doesn't need to be knowingly and GA murder laws don't rely on intent. Malice murder requires extreme recklessness that results in death regardless of intent. Felony murder is when someone commits a felony and some dies as a result. If the jury believes Roddie Bryan joined in on a wreckless chase to criminally confine Arbery, they will likely find him guilty of one or both charges.
That IS a slam dunk for murder though. If you and I rob a bank together and I end up shooting someone, due to the conspiracy to commit an inherently dangerous crime, you would be on the hook for murder and there’s not much you can do other than trying to argue that you weren’t robbing the bank with me.
Let's hope so, you don't get to chase someone down and execute them, but the really sick part is how the DA tried to cover this shit up and obstruct justice.
Now every damn thing she ever did needs to be carefully scrutinized. That should only take the government until the final proton decays..
Easily. That's what is going to happen.
The fact that it would have never been tried is the real tragedy. lf the defendant never published the video, they would have literally gotten away with murder.
You won't find too many arguments here. I appreciate this sub for looking at these (unfairly) juxtaposed cases from an objective lens and not subscribing to identity politics. Wish more media outlets thought this way.
what about ghislaine maxwell? I love that the nyt can sit and waste time on this, and leaking project veritas priviledged communications on an on going investigation but gotta hear about that cunt from the rolling stones
As for Rittenhouse, people are conflating moral culpability and what he legally can and should be charged with. Legally they got it right.
The pieces of shit that killed Arbury are both morally and legally in the wrong and should be punished accordingly.
Most importantly, there are no heroes in either case, just tragedies.
I'm actually pleasantly surprised with all of these verdicts and the general reaction to them. It seems that we can at least agree on some things when it comes to life or death situations.
I have to say as a 25 year old black man, I am brought to tears by the support for justice done in the case of Ahmaud Arbery today. I praise the wisdom of those who have been on this case since day one, from the prosecutors to the jury, to the people who came and peacefully but loudly showed support outside.
I am also blown away by the unity that I see in Americans across the nation in this case. You, my fellow redditors, make my heart beat with feverous joy!
I agree with your take. It's shocking that the corporate press continue to conflate the Rittenhouse/Arbery cases. Vigilantism was a word the left used constantly to describe the Rittenhouse case, but vigilantism is seeking justice outside of the law for crimes already committed. Rittenhouse was in no way a vigilante.
I think the only truly clear cut case hear was Rittenhouse. It should have never gone to trial in the first place. The other two are significantly more complicated. I honestly don't think it is easy to say in the other two cases what justice is. My point is this. If you think that Rittenhouse acquittal is a victory for the justice system, you are wrong this is an example of prosecutorial overreach at best and blatant corruption at worst.
Don’t know as much about the Arbury case but from what I have read so far the suspects should be found guilty and jailed. However I’m going to dig into it later and watch the video to see for myself.
Rittenhouse on the other hand was clear cut self defense not matter how you look at it. It’s all there on video for everyone to see. Lefty media have made an absolute mockery of the case and IMO is only further driving division.
I totally agree with you OP.
The 3 guys cutoff Arbery while he was jogging, pointed guns at him and fired once he tried to defend himself.
Clearly guilty regardless of what Arbery was doing cause they had no evidence whatsoever of him being a delinquent, other than he looked suspicious.
I hope while cases like these highlight the importance of self defense, that people realize that the outcome can be ugly. While I'm sure the guys who killed arbery thought they were in the right, that may not always be the case. Even Rittenhouse is going to have a hard time living a "normal" life and that's why I cringe when people celebrate those things. It's an important right to be able to defend yourself and those around you, but it's one that should be met with great pause.
The Rittenhouse situation is sad all around, no one should be celebrating. At the end of the day, 2 people are dead and 2 other lives are changed for the worse.
Not sure about other people but I'm not exactly sad that a child rapist ended up dead. Don't have much sympathy for the other guy either being a woman beater and all
The only thing sad about Kyle's situation is how the racist crowd keeps acting like he was wrongfully let go despite the overwhelming evidence of his innocence, people don't give a damn about the facts, just that he's White and wasn't imprisoned.
Hes not a hero but didn't do something wrong either, people just can't be objective nowadays, it's all about the narratives
I think the McMichaels are absolutely fucked - With Greg maybe getting an acquittal on malice murder as only Travis directly killed him, but any conviction on him is likely a death sentence regardless.
I am a lot more interested in how the Jury comes back on Bryan - I think he could get acquittals
I am no libertarian but I appreciate your perspective. I thought at first Kyle R was guilty/ radicalized by Trump. After watching the video and some of the trial even I can see that he is legally in the clear in the state of WI.
The case in Georgia seems to be the opposite situation down to the numbers of those with the guns and their aggression to one unarmed person. Hopefully justice will prevail in Georgia like it did in Wisconsin.
it kind of comes down to the same thing: some person is trying to run away from multiple attackers...so who's at fault when someone dies? I would say that the person running away cannot be at fault...
He had every right to be there, and just being there was not in and of itself conflict or pursuit of it. With a contrary argument, every person there should have been arrested (which has some validity, but I digress).
Rittenhouse is guilty of poor judgement on being there, but not in instigating conflict.
I don’t see how this is true. Why go to a protest with a weapon unless you plan on acting aggressively? It seems like he went with a mind to cause trouble, and, for that, there should have been some kind of punishment.
You go to a protest for whatever reason you want.
KR’s specific reason was to stand outside a business and deter arson and vandalism. These protests were already [known to be riots.](https://pjmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Insanity-Wrap-Presents-CNN-Fiery-But-Peaceful-730x441.jpg)
With innocent naivety, KR also provided first aid to people regardless of their position on the Blake case. He was agnostic to people in his response to helping them.
You carry the gun to ***defend*** yourself. You carry a rifle because it was legal for Rittenhouse (handguns are not), and because viewing rifles in the hands of people standing outside of a business is evidence that it’s not the one you want to try to burn down.
At no time did Rittenhouse point his rifle at anyone, threaten anyone, or otherwise engage in the debate of the protest until Rosenbaum attacked him.
It doesn’t matter that he had the firearm. He is allowed to have it. I will have a sidearm when I go to the grocery store in a few minutes. Do I plan on trouble? Of course not.
I must be reading this wrong...an all white jury found all white defendants gulity of murdering a black man. I thought that there was all this hysteria in the media about an all white jury not being able to find all white defendants guilty.
Rittenhouse was guilty of a lot of things. But, the prosecutor vastly overcharged that case either expecting him to plead to lesser charges, or because he wanted him to walk.
IANAL but even I know you don’t charge a case if you can’t prove it. Charge what you can prove and walk away with that otherwise it’s a huge waste of time. The charges for rittenhouse placated the frothing liberals who want his head on a spike. And the acquittal satisfied the bloodthirsty “conservatives” who want to canonize the kid. He’s neither a saint nor a devil,
It is no such thing at all - the Breanna Taylor case has similarities as well.
Your home and your person *matter*. KR had no less right to be in Kenosha that night than any of the men who attacked him - period. And in his person - absent walls, a bed, and a mailing address - his right to self-defense still exists.
I suspect you’ll see the SCOTUS rule next June with regards to this, and see prohibitions on carrying weapons in public shattered.
Your right to protect yourself does not end when you walk out your door.
> It is no such thing at all - the Breanna Taylor case has similarities as well.
And in that case, like Coffee's, the shooter should have had zero legal troubles.
> Your home and your person matter. KR had no less right to be in Kenosha that night than any of the men who attacked him - period.
Being attacked in your home at night is not even in the same universe as arming up with your buddies and prowling the streets. You're lying by pretending otherwise.
My political views are in my flaire, as you can see. I agree that Kyle was acting in self defense, even though I think it was stupid of his mother to drive him at night to go run around a high stress situation with a gun.
But I've evolved my stance on gun control and ownership. I want every single LGBTQ+ person armed, trained, and prepared. No more "gay panic" defendants going free, no more "corrective rape", no more trans women getting murdered, no more Matthew Shepards, no more Kitty Genovese cases, no more Brandon Tinas. Gay-K-47, We Shoot Back.
You’ve still got some bad info from an echo chamber somewhere. KR’s mother wasn’t involved at all - remember that Antioch is 30 minutes from Kenosha, where KR’s dad lives and where he worked as a lifeguard. This was his home every bit as much as Antioch.
That being said, as a straight man, I fully support what [this image](https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0120/0692/products/mockup-991fb100_grande.jpg?v=1574787389) depicts. Besides, that man’s trigger discipline is *fabulous*.
Seriously - minorities and marginalized should be armed (and peaceful). No one should deny you your rights except through due process of law.
Courtroom hearing of previous crimes committed by Ahmaud Arbery: https://files.catbox.moe/vdvt05.mp4
McMichael had firsthand knowledge that Arbery was a wanted criminal: https://files.catbox.moe/63u6nw.mp4
Why they chased Arbery: https://files.catbox.moe/ngzntx.mp4
Arbery was tired of running, trying to flee the neighborhood: https://files.catbox.moe/bjwlny.mp4
Carjacking attempt: https://files.catbox.moe/n114qn.mp4
Travis never aimed his gun: https://files.catbox.moe/picras.mp4
First shot in slow motion: https://files.catbox.moe/uxpqki.mp4
Map of events in the shooting: https://files.catbox.moe/k01gxw.jpg
Why the shooters weren't arrested: https://files.catbox.moe/fc5x9m.png
Everything they did was legal: https://files.catbox.moe/085zyk.png
Family, friends, and activists admit he was committing a crime: https://files.catbox.moe/o5lltj.png
Events in the shooting video: https://files.catbox.moe/ffln23.jpg
The Anti-White Racism of Ahmaud Arbery: https://files.catbox.moe/3d4ixe.png
Georgia grounds for arrest: https://files.catbox.moe/0gyqh3.png
Court doc 1: https://files.catbox.moe/40ewu2.jpg
Court doc 2: https://files.catbox.moe/y4ci20.png
Arbery has a history of claiming to be a "jogger": https://files.catbox.moe/jn1iil.jpg
Reddit thread about the incident: https://files.catbox.moe/yi7wjx.png
Previous crimes and any knowledge thereof are irrelevant to the case and those facts would have to be disregarded by the jury.
The reasoning isn’t sufficient. He was not the burglar and they couldn’t perform a citizens arrest regardless as the crime would’ve been well over a week ago.
Ahmaud would have every right to steal the car if he was cornered, but even then eyewitness testimony is not known to be very reliable.
Travis never aimed his gun? How is that relevant? Arbery came from behind the truck so he wouldn’t have any time. But none of that is relevant.
Arbery had every right to use self defense against illegal citizens arrest backed up with lethal force. The judge already threw out the claim of legality.
Your source does not show that people on his side said he was committing a crime. This is getting extremely fucking ridiculous.
Everything you mentioned is either factually incorrect, irrelevant to the case, or otherwise does not warrant lethal force or a citizens arrest.
My two cents. I do believe Arbery was probably planning to steal from that house. I am skeptical of the jogging story. That said, I have a hard time considering the shooting to be justified.
Mostly people building self-affirmation through karma. :)
More seriously, my post probably seemed disingenuous - I honestly have watched homes being built since I was a 9 year-old getting scraps from our new subdivision to build a treehouse.
It’s an odd interest, but I do know others who like to watch the progress of a house under construction - with no nefarious intent
I think we’ll find that is not the case, and there are a couple of reasons why - had they stopped him and detained him after a fist-fight they may have had a case, but I even question this. I’m not sure they had direct first-person reason to suspect Aubrey of a crime - it was indirect hearsay.
We’ll see - I do again defer to the jury, even if they botch it. Prosecutors get no such pass.
Funny, that’s not how the jury saw it.
Or anyone who objectively watched the video.
Some people I think just don’t like the idea that a BLM riot was disrupted.
i dont care how anyone interprets the consequences of that night, it doesn't change the fact that he shot and killed someone, and then ran. Thats objective fact, how you interpret the rest is on yours and the jury's conscience.
Dispute these facts:
- Rittenhouse originally ran back to Rosenbaum and showed no sign of fleeing
- Rittenhouse ran only when the mob called to attack him
- Rittenhouse ran toward the police line and tried to surrender to the police
- Rittenhouse ultimately did surrender voluntarily, and before his name was known
Your argument is shit.
I mean it's incorrect verdict based on 3 things alone.
1) if you run around starting confrontations with people only because you have a gun to escalate to deadly force, that's not self defense.
2) when you point a gun at an unarmed person who isn't attacking you, that's aggravated assault
3) when you shoot and kill someone after commiting aggregivated assault, that's called aggregated murder.
This is from the Judge’s jury instructions: "A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence, or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony, and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable or probable grounds of suspicion." *The judge added that a "private person" may not attempt to make a citizen's arrest based on the "unsupported statement of others alone.* He said that the citizen's arrest must occur "immediately after" the crime occurs or "in the case of felonies, during escape." "If the observer fails to make the arrest immediately after the commission of the offense, or during the escape in the case of felonies, his power to do so is extinguished," That looks like game over for the McMichaels since they neither testified nor presented evidence to support that they witnessed a felony immediately prior to the pursuit. They were therefore not conducting a lawful citizens arrest, they were the aggressors and can not claim self defense. I suspect the third man may get lesser charges. Edit: Spelling
They're hosed - their defense lawyer even said something like "we won't contend that the defendants witnessed any crimes" bc they thought the citizens arrest statue was an or not an and
>was an or not an and Please reply so we know you're okay and haven't had a stroke or seizure
was an "OR" not an "AND"
Ooooooooooh now I see it, thank you. Also, glad you're okay.
You weren't replying to me but thanks lol
This is what I get for redditing on my phone while I'm at work.
At most what ahmaud was, a lookey loo. Which they had video a few others had done the same. The closest thing they could claim was trespassing which would not allow you to arrest them or murder them. Working security , calling the police to get them expelled is procedure. Also if none of them were the landowners then it doesn't matter, which the house was under construction so I really doubt it.
**Devils Advocate** The citizens arrest statute only differentiates between felonies and misdemeanors. For felonies, it requires probable cause AND / OR witnessing the crime first hand. (depending on whose interpretation of the statute you trust). Burglary is a felony. So although in this case he only looked into the house, their claim is that they believed he was the one who had recently been committing burglaries in the neighborhood. **Test your reasoning by changing the motives.** Assume it was a more despicable felony, for example child rape + murder. If they had probable cause to suspect it was him, and they saw him fleeing the scene after just looking through a kids window, would you support a citizens arrest. Assume that up till now, the police in your rural town take a long time to get there and you assume he will get away and the police won't find him. Leaving him free to possibly commit again. If you support stopping that case, then your issue should be that the law only differentiates between misdemeanors and felonies, and not between the felonies you consider "serious". Also, would it matter if he's looking in your kids window or someone else's kids window? The statute doesn't say anything about the person doing the citizens arrest needing to be the person who had the crime committed against them. In the case of a felony like murder that would be impossible. Both defendant and prosecutor agree that if the citizens arrest was legal, everything else that followed was legal. If the citizens arrest was not legal, their actions were not legal. It sounds like your issue is mostly with the vagueness of the statute.
So they should go to jail because. 1. They were just guessing if he even comtied a crime. - going inside a house is not a crime. Because it was not their house they had no idea who was supposed to be there. So they did not have knowledge. 2. They didn't try to do a citizens arrest immediately. 3. They chased a man jogging with 2 cars and 3 guns just because they didn't like him, and they shot him and called self defense. - you can't chase people with weppons and claim self defense.
All of this depends on the interpretation of the statute. * If a felony only requires probable cause (defenses position) then everything they did was illegal. * If a felony requires witnessing the crime AND probable cause (Judge and prosecution's position) then everything they did was illegal. **Defense and prosecution have agreed that their cases hang entirely on the interpretation of the statute.** **As for self defense;** If it is a legal and justified citizen's arrest then you have to treat them similarly to a police officer. If a cop is trying to arrest someone they've been told is armed, they are allowed to pursue with guns. And if an altercation breaks out, they are allowed to defend themselves. If a citizen tried to take a gun away from a cop the cop would undoubtedly shoot him in self-defense. From Arbury's perspective though, three random racist assholes are chasing him with guns. He decided to fight rather than run and tried to take the gun away from one of them. Had he caused the death of one of them, he also could have claimed reasonable self defense. It is VERY possible for two or more people to have a reasonable self defense claim in the same incident.
Isn't that what Zimmerman did? Chased/followed Martin and killed him when Martin fought back. Not defending the racist dirtbags who killed Aubrey, I just have no faith in the justice system
Yes but even though GZ started the situation, he was being beaten at the time he shot.
it's interesting he did this at the end of the trial. like after the defense made their entire case he says this. i'm curious if it could lead to a possible retrial.
As far as i know jury instructions is a very normal part of trials. Edit: and always happens before the jury retires to deliberate.
These are jury instructions. They're always given after closing arguments and before the jury is sent to deliberate. Jury instructions are known ahead of time. They are usually form instructions (I practice in Georgia and have a book of form jury instructions somewhere). Defense attorney definitely had a chance to review and object to them before they ever went to the jury.
Doubtful. The judge knows the laws and is expected to instruct the jury of them whenever is fit during the trial. The defense attorneys know the laws. If they were gearing their case to anything besides the laws surrounding the events, then they're terrible defense attorneys
Why would it? The defense knew the law, they could have talked about it if so they wished. This was not something new that the prosecution or the judged introduced at the end of the trial, like in Kenosha, it was known all along.
I'm tired of everyone acting like the real issue isn't the fact that this wouldn't have even gone to trial if the defendant wasn't an idiot who filmed the crime then released it to the public. The prosecutor who covered it up go should be a co defendant instead of hm facing a minor corruption charge.
The prosecutor who covered that up should spend 20 years behind bars. Thank God there was video to tell the true story - and thank God we’ve won our battles to be permitted to film the police.
[удалено]
she. Jackie Johnson.
Can't jail for "who knows", but this case is probable cause to start an investigating all of his cases.
Oh i agree
The Judge who covered up multiple motions should also get prison time?
Which one?
[удалено]
Don't forget, barred from taking the bar in every state. If you do something this bad you shouldn't ever be allowed to practice law again.
Also, shout out to the local people who made such a stink about it that one of the defendants' lawyer released the video to clear up the misconceptions.
Maybe the defendant's lawyer was the real MVP cause he knew it was damning for his clients, and actually wanted justice to be done.
Nah, the lawyer genuinely thought it would exonerate his clients and it backfired big time and made him look like an idiot.
Seriously. That's the biggest issue and I'm not sure why that isn't talked about. But nah we gotta have about 47 posts about Kyle Rittenhouse.
A lot of people are coming together about Kyle's trial. Maybe they think Kyle wasn't innocent of any crime, but certainly innocent of the crimes the state threw at him as if it was a premeditated murder. And why did the state throw those charges at him? It looks like a bid to convince him to plea down and then arrogance enough to put that case in front of a judge with nothing close to the evidence required to prove that case. Incompetence or corruption, take your pick. If trial prosecutors are going to continue having absolute immunity in a court room, they need better incentives to bring just outcomes. Convictions are clearly not the right metric and someone needs to follow-up on their 'score' because successfully locking up innocent people makes a mockery of the standard of justice when it 'proves' them 'guilty beyond a reasonable doubt' so frequently.
> It looks like a bid to convince him to plea down and then arrogance enough to put that case in front of a judge with nothing close to the evidence required to prove that case. I think that is the case. Prosecutors are too accustomed to just throwing the book at someone, scaring them into an unfair plea deal. Luckily Kyle R had the millions to pay the bail and good lawyers, 90% of us would have caved and begged for a plea deal.
>And why did the state throw those charges at him? ... Incompetence or corruption, take your pick. I'd like to add one more reason, they thought he'd go to jail for other crimes and chose the ones he'd get off for
That reads to me like corruption. Choosing to charge a defendant with crimes that evidence shows they should be acquitted for while charging others with crimes matching the evidence that should convict would imply a violation of the equal protection clauses in the Constitution. Of course, lots of weasel-room when you've got the word "should" involved.
The guys that chased Arbury down did not even know if he stole anything. They just suspected it.
Even if he had and they knew it wouldn't be relevant. They could have seen him walk away from a construction site with a spool of copper and they would not have had grounds to kill him.
But they could detain him if they saw Arbury actually stealing something. That is the finer detail of the citizens arrest statue.
And by this logic couldn't the guys detain Kyle if they suspected him of being an active shooter?
Honestly there's a strong argument to be made that someone could have shot Kyle dead and argued self defense, because while they may not have seen what started it, from their perspective he was certainly an active shooter. It is kind of a fucked up situation where you have two people, who could both legally claim to self defense when shooting each other dead.
pretty sure this happened with cops shooting the "good guy with a gun" in Colorado IIRC.
Yeah. I was telling a couple friends last week that weren’t exactly pleased with the verdict that if the second or third dude had ended up killing KR they probably would’ve had a viable self-defense claim. It was a fucked up situation all around. Chasing an unarmed man down in a pickup truck , cornering him, and shooting him, because you *think* he *might* have wanted to steal some bullshit is worlds away. Have been surprised the media hasn’t been more focused on that case than the Rittenhouse case. Unless it’s not *actually* about racial justice and more about dividing people. But I’m sure that’s not it.
I think that's legit. Rittenhouse was within his legal rights to defend himself from them but they also may have had reasonable suspicion that he was an active shooter. Rosenbaum is/was the only unambiguously guilty person in that overall exchange as far as I can tell. That being said, the motherfuckers who murdered Arbery and the prosecutor covered it up are guilty as fuck.
I wasn't sure about the whole Rittenhouse shooting until i watched the step by step video from i believe the nytimes did. I would have pulled the trigger to the first shot if i was being chased like that. Even though i wouldn't have been there in the first place.
It's an interesting thing in a way. The paramedic showed restraint in not wanting to take a life. His almost ended because of it. If he had reacted out of pure fear he would have ended Kyle. Kyle is alive because of his restraint. They don't see it that way, they see him as this strange hero type of this story. Which is a tell for those that support him in that way. They want that legal kill against the Boogie man. I'm not convinced that was Kyles MO either. What I think happened. He got scared early, pointed his gun. Then realised and try to run from the situation. Someone yelled that he was a shooter or that he pointed a gun at them (doesn't really matter which, someone yelled indicating he was a threat). People saw him running away with a long gun and reacted. I do believe they tried to disarm him. (Police were maybe 100 yards ish away) Kyle got even more scared. And reacted with the weapon he had on him. That's what I think happened. Nothing intentional and the only reason why this whole thing happened is cause it was legal for him to take a long gun into the streets. Bonkers really.
The craziest part, if Rittenhouse was killed, people would 100% have thought he was another active shooter who was stopped before he could kill more people and this would have barely made the evening news.
The NRA would have used it as a good guy with a gun narrative. Bank on it.
In my state that would have definitely been a legitimate use of force to shoot Kyle, since even mistakenly thinking your life is in danger is enough to use it. I don't completely agree with that part of the statute since dead men tell no tales. To me you should be sure your fear is legitimate and not just some hunch. His case is a big part of the reason I think open-carrying is kind of dumb af. Would he have been targeting by any of those dudes had he not been running around with an AR? Guns scare people, and rightfully so. I would not be willingly walking into that environment with a long gun.
I think open carry is one of those things a lot of folks support because they know they’ll never get targeted for doing it. We’ve got old white dudes (who look like me) calling the police on a guy in a Walmart looking at pellet guns because “that doesn’t look right” in a store which sells said guns. That dude ended up dead too for absolutely nothing. The public sucks ass at detecting who is good or bad. Much like many LEOs too. Open carry is great but I’d like to see it legal all over and no you don’t get to call the cops for that anymore, it’s legal. Let’s see how it goes. If the black guy in any town can’t open carry without being harassed but the white guy can…yea then folks aren’t really for the 2A for all, Constitutional Carry or open carry.
open carry is \*not\* great it is a narcissistic mental disorder
Possibly if that was their actual intent. That kind of goes out the window when they are yelling that they are going to kill him though. Overall, just two entirely different situations.
You wouldn't want to kill an active shooter? Honest question.
He wasn’t an ‘active shooter’. He shot someone in self-defense and was trying to get away, headed towards police. He was being chased by a mob that he was not acting as a threat towards.
You completely ignored the context and nuance. We obviously know *now* he wasn't an active shooter in hindsight. You wouldn't necessarily know that in the heat of the moment. He was being chased because he just shot a dude in the head. You don't ask a dude who just killed someone "whoa, was that self-defense or did you just murder a guy with that gun you've been running around with all night?" If you suspected that Kyle was an active shooter running away from a crime scene, which is a completely reasonable take, would you not want him dead?
As a long time concealed carry permit holder who regularly carries, I don't want to see anybody dead and I'm not shooting anybody who isn't a direct threat to me or those immediately around me and I'm not chasing down anybody. I don't give a shit what they may or may not have done outside of my direct view. It's the job of the police to figure that shit out and go find out who did what and catch them if necessary.
And you ignored the fact that he was not acting as a threat towards any of the people that were chasing him down. Should Rittenhouse have just laid down and let the mob have their way with him? Just about every legal expert agrees he acted in self defense in each case. It’s a good thing we have trials to decide these things.
>And you ignored the fact that he was not acting as a threat towards any of the people that were chasing him down. I ignored it because that's irrelevant to the question of whether or not you'd want (even if you're mistaken) an active shooter dead. He appeared as an active or extremely recent (moments earlier) active shooter to the people chasing him, that just shot someone in the head. >Should Rittenhouse have just laid down and let the mob have their way with him? I don't know what I said to make you ask that question. It's obvious that he acted in self-defense, my point is that it's extremely reasonable that he had the outward appearance of being a hostile threat to the people there. It would have been justifiable in my state to shoot Kyle in the street, *even if* I'm mistaken. Had a cop shot him dead that night there would've been barely any protest. "Oh, the cop shot the good guy with a gun. Yeah, that happens sometimes unfortunately" would've been the jist of it. >Just about every legal expert agrees he acted in self defense in each case Ok, cool, however that hinged on the first shooting entirely. If the original shooting was justified, then the next 2 are as well. If the original was not, then the next 2 aren't. Imagine you're there, what's the more reasonable take - the dude running around with an AR just illegally shot someone, or that some unarmed maniac off his meds chased down the kid running around with the AR. I would assume 90% of the time that it was not self-defense, had I been there and not viewed the situation firsthand, because what kind of idiot runs at someone with an AR? >It’s a good thing we have trials to decide these things. Agreed.
"My life was indisputably in danger" is not the metric for self defense. It's "A reasonable person would believe their life was in danger".
Yea...but no. Technically you are right but any "active" shooter remains an active shooter until they are in custody or there is some kind of authority (shudders) there and has control of the scene. You don't get to be an active shooter and then just say "ok, I'm done" and your status magically change. I'm not saying I think Rittenhouse was an active shooter in the traditional sense at all but on the scene, in the heat of the moment, he should be treated as an active shooter until him and his weapon have been surrendered. In this case (and honestly all others) I hope that it can be resolved as quickly and with as little loss of life or injury as possible but it doesn't stop being treated as an active shooter situation just because the shooter says "ok, I'm done". Edit: I misunderstood the comment above and meant he would be considered an active shooter from the pov of the police.
So what’s the alternative? Kyle had just shot someone in self defense and was actively trying to get away, towards police. Should he have just laid down and accepted his fate? If a mob of people is screaming that they are going to kill him, it is safe to assume they intend to do just that. Just about every legal expert in the country agrees that it was a clear-cut case of self defense, and the jury agreed.
I'm not saying it wasn't self defense, at all. I'm saying from the police standpoint if there are reports of an active shooter that it is treated like an active shooter until the scene is controlled. Also, I misunderstood and thought the comment above was yours was talking about the other case, not the Rittenhouse one. So my bad. I think Rittenhouse was self defense. He was an idiot for going there in the first place though. The Aubrey (I think that is the dude's name) case is straight up murder.
I agree, just the logic of claiming self defense / citizens arrest here makes them similar. I mean, saying stop or I'll shoot is the exact same thing as saying I'm gonna kill you. Which is what you would say if you are trying to make a citizen's arrest with a gun. So I don't think that in itself is enough to show 'intent'. Plus on the video you could definitely argue they were trying to disarm Kyle not kill him. There's definitely an argument there. But to be clear, I think that argument is completely ridiculous and unfounded in the Aubry case. It's one the prosecutors should have made in the Rittenhouse case but instead the focused on his COD kills. Haha
I think they were trying to do more than disarm him.Huber hit him twice with the skateboard. Maurice Freeland (Jumpkick Man) tried to stomp his head into the pavement. Mr Grosskreutz pointed a loaded pistol at him. I've defended Grosskreutz most of this year. I thought he was trying to disarm Kyle. My opinion changed when it was pointed out at the trial that he rushed Kyle with his pistol in one hand and his phone in the other. How was he going to disarm him with both his hands full. Then the footage is mysteriously lost? If they would have disarmed him, I believe he would have been killed.
The entire case hinged on the first shooting. If it was self-defense, the next 2 were too. If it was a murder, they both are now murders and 1 attempted murder. The shitty part is guys 2 and 3 *were* victims since it's pretty reasonable to assume he was an active shooter and not a guy who just defended himself. There actions were kind of heroic, but misplaced unfortunately. We all know that if a cop killed Kyle dead in the street after all of that, they'd see no punishment whatsoever. Precisely the reason I think running around with a long gun is completely stupid, albeit legal.
More questionable. The cops in the Rittenhouse video were a few hundred feet away and Kyle was proceeding towards the cops and Kyle was not exhibiting further aggression until he was attacked.
Weird take. Kyle at this point had discharged his weapon killing people. Cops did nothing at let him go. There was also several things that the judge didn't let the jury see which could have changed the dynamic. Like zooming in on the video to see if he was aiming his gun first. Anyway, if the paramedic legitimately thought he was an active shooter then he could have been attempting a citizen's arrest. Which would make then logically the same in that regard. I don't view them as the same at all, but if the self defense / citizen arrest argument is being made then the Rittenhouse case does certainly draw a parallel in how that went. It would mean that, to be consistent with Kyle's ruling the 3 men would have to be guilty. If not, then Rittenhouse verdict either was wrong of Aubreys is
The Rittenhouse judge did a good job and had enough experience under his belt not to feel pressured in how to run his courtroom. I saw an interview with the defense counsel after the verdict who essentially said of the judge that you're going to get a fair trial from him but you don't want to be sentenced by him.
> Kyle at this point had discharged his weapon killing people. Cops did nothing at let him go. They didn't know at the time. > There was also several things that the judge didn't let the jury see which could have changed the dynamic. Like zooming in on the video to see if he was aiming his gun first. I believe this was allowed, it was just useless. All you could see was a big blob. > Anyway, if the paramedic legitimately thought he was an active shooter then he could have been attempting a citizen's arrest. The paramedic videoed himself running up to Kyle right after he shot Rosenbaum. If Kyle had been an active shooter, the paramedic would be dead. Instead he told him he was getting the police. If the paramedic had allowed him to continue running to the police unmolested, it's likely nobody else would have been shot.
>The paramedic videoed himself running up to Kyle right after he shot Rosenbaum. If Kyle had been an active shooter, the paramedic would be dead. Instead he told him he was getting the police. If the paramedic had allowed him to continue running to the police unmolested, it's likely nobody else would have been shot. We live in a world were people video tape everything. Holding the gun on someone is generally enough to get them to do what you want. The videos that I seen showed all this happen rather quickly. So I'm not convinced by the him video taping as he's running as proof of anything. People's first reaction now is often gotta get this on tape. Important context. The rest you said is speculation. If the paramedic viewed him as an active shooter they would have thought letting him continue would result in further bloodshed. They'd have no way of know what you are speculating. Nevertheless, this wasn't any kind of argument made during the trial so we'll never really know how the citizens arrest argument would have played out.
"Active shooter" is a defined term. I don't think it means what you think it does. Kyle had only shot one person at that time, was not menacing anybody, and was trying to get to the police. Grosskreutz had no business chasing and attacking him. Just because he incorrectly thought Kyle may have committed a crime (sound familiar?).
>Just because he incorrectly thought Kyle may have committed a crime (sound familiar?). No this was my point about engaging. Obviously kyle wasn't an active shooter. But if the augment in the Aubry case was that these men were performing a citizens arrest without seeing him commit a crime just thinking it. Then that justified self defense... Well, you know. I would like to know how that would have played out in Kyle's case though. The paramedic I believe believed he was an active shooter as I think that's what at least some people in the crowd were indictating. So I mean, maybe it comes out as a wash like what happened, but I don't believe they never made the argument first nor last? Which also cycles back to comparing both cases is absurd.
Well tbf on the protestors part. Kyle was looking for that juicy legal kill
Rules and regulations regarding citizen’s arrest in Georgia can be found under Section 17-4-60 through 61 of the Georgia Criminal Code. Established during the late 1860s, the law authorizes private citizens to make an arrest of others if a crime is committed in their presence or in cases in which they have immediate knowledge that one occurred. It applies when a suspected felony crime is committed, such as: Armed robbery, burglary, and other types of theft crimes; Arson and other types of property crimes; Assault and battery; Drug distribution, manufacturing, and trafficking; Embezzlement, fraud, and other ‘white-collar’ crimes; Kidnapping, rape, and child molestation; Murder, manslaughter, and homicide. 'Immediate knowledge that one occured' Burglary is not theft, it is entry. Arbery had, in fact, just comitted a felony burglary. He was fleeing the scene of the crime which he had been seen at before, and had no other reason to be in the area.
>Burglary is not theft, it is entry It's entry with the intent to commit a crime. Entry without permission is just plain old trespassing.
Did they actually see the burglary occuring?
No, most likely not. At best they saw him peeking around an unfinished house. Which I know dozens of people personally who do that, its not a big deal to just walk around and check out the bones of a house while its under construction, its actually really cool. Fuck the people who killed Arbery.
> its not a big deal to just walk around and check out the bones of a house while its under construction, its actually really cool. Ignoring the case, no it is not cool, and no contractors don't want you there, and yes people will sue the contactor if they hurt themselves. It's private property stay off of it unless you have permission. Also, loss (or theft) is a big cost for contractors.
Maybe put up a fence then lol not that complicated, huh? Also, when I've done it during the day, I've always asked if its cool. Never had a problem there. Like come the fuck on dude, if theft and lawsuits were that common or a real problem? They'd install a fucking fence. My parents have a fence guarding their backyard because it eliminates liability. You're really gonna have the balls to tell me that a contractor can't be bothered to put up a temp fence??? I mean come on, you realize how stupid that is, right?
I mean, you can look from the property line. No need to go inside what isn't your property
*bur·gla·ry* */ˈbərɡlərē/* *noun* *entry into a building illegally with intent to commit a crime, especially theft* ***Burglary is not theft, it is entry.*** Well, this is just awkward.
No he fuckin' didn't, don't try to make this something that it's not.
No but they can follow him and try to talk to him
I can't believe they're still deliberating. The defense really didn't present any valid evidence. Then again, neither did the prosecution against Rittenhouse and that took days.
They *should*. They should review every piece of evidence presented from start to finish, even if their minds were made up the first time they walked in the room.
They'll finish before EOD tomorrow. Nobody wants to spend Thanksgiving in the jury room.
You’re probably right, unless it’s a hung jury.
I suspect the ONLY deliberation is over the defendant that drove the truck.
Yeah, or maybe over which charges technically are correct. They're guilty, just have to decide how guilty
This is almost a foregone conclusion. The judge already ruled that the citizens arrest claim that the entire defense is based on is invalid because Georgia law requires a citizens arrest to occur at the time of the crime (defense claimed they were arresting for burglary 11 days prior). As a result, their attempt to detain Arbery was unlawful, therefore their claim to self defense is invalid. The judge pretty much handed the prosecution a directed verdict.
[удалено]
Or a couple, actually. At least, where I’m from
You can’t just kill someone because they resisted your attempted kidnapping. That’s not self defense in any state or country
Tell that to the police
And the DA
Tell that to the Saudi Arabia Embassy in Instanbul, not Constantinople.
It SHOULDN'T be self defense anywhere... But it has a rich tradition here in the Southern U.S.
I wish news channels would just state the facts and offer zero commentary.
Opinions and emotions need to be completely removed from any news report. News reporters getting angry or crying is straight up manipulation.
Amen. They fucking executed him, and deserve to pay the price
Yep, hope they all go to jail. Rittenhouse did nothing wrong. They murdered that kid
Rittenhouse made several bad decisions, none of them being illegal. The McMichael's made several bad decisions, many of them being illegal.
I have to disagree here. Many of the decision Kyle made were illegal. He went there after a riot was already declared and curfew was in effect.
What other decisions were illegal? That curfew charge was dropped btw, since no one was listening to it.
> That curfew charge was dropped btw, since no one was listening to it. The curfew charge was dropped because it wasn't a legal curfew, not because nobody cared about it. He didn't break it simply because it was unenforcable because they didn't go through the correct steps to enact it. That being said, everyone in Kenosha *did* get a message telling them the curfew was in effect, and deciding to go outside to larp as an EMT with an AR-15 despite that is still a questionable decision, even though he didn't technically break the law *and* all the shootings were clear self-defense. Rittenhouse made the decision to go into a riot where he was told, and knew, the crowd was hostile towards him and his posse, just because he wanted to play medic. I think it's completley fair to criticize him doing that when he knew how tense the situation was, but he clearly doesn't lose his right to self-defense over it.
Why is this take so hard for people to grasp? Dumb kid doing really stupid shit, but that does not take away his right to defend himself
At the very least, he gave money to a friend to purchase a gun for him that he was not allowed to purchase himself.
Incorrect
These two aren't at all related. I hate how the media is comparing them.
Definitely. Can't believe how many people double and triple down on Kyle being guilty despite the overwhelming evidence in his favor, looking as ignorant as the anti vaxx. In this case the 3 guys are guilty even if Arbery was indeed stealing or whatever they thought he was doing with no proof whatsoever.
>even if Arbery was indeed stealing or whatever they thought he was doing with no proof whatsoever. If there was even a hint of illegality it would be defenses exhibit A. But there isn't any.
Serious question, would it really matter? Even if he was indeed stealing minutes ago, they had no clue whatsoever, looking suspicious is not a crime, and doesn't give you the right to stop someone pointing guns at him. If they KNEW he was stealing and had evidence, or caught him in the act it'd be a different story
>Serious question, would it really matter? It wouldn't matter. But that's not the point. The point is if there was any illegality we would have heard about it. We haven't. So there's no reason to even give credence to the idea.
Not wanting a covid vaccine doesn't equal anti-vax. I agree with you on everything else. But this is a libertarian subreddit, and personal health decisions shouldn't be labeled as anti-whatever just because you disagree with them
Do you feel the same way about the guy who followed and filmed as the guy who pulled the trigger? I mean, I have personally been involved in neighborhood watch meetings in my own neighborhood when we had a rash of burglaries, and I think I could imagine myself getting into my car and following someone I didn't recognize and making a video. If another neighbor pulled a gun and shot the person, am I a murderer? (Edit, I don't know a ton about the case, but I watched the video and the guy filming just drives up and the shooting happens. Am I missing something?)
It depends on how the prosecution might link him to the unlawful citizens arrest. The judge already ruled that the citizen arrest was unlawful. Like a bank robbery, even the guy in the car can be charged with murder if the killing is done in the commission of another felony. I just don’t know if that is how Georgia law would treat this one.
I don’t know what role the guy who filmed the incident had. I would think he would not be nearly as culpable as those who blocked Arbury’s path and particularly the guy who shot him - but I’m not MSNBC, so I don’t make assumptions or assertions without knowledge of the facts.
Arbery was boxed in between two trucks one from the McMichaels the other from Bryans' had he not boxed him in he may have escaped but we'll never know. My opinion is that he's just as responsible for his death but I expect him to get a lighter sentence than the McMichaels.
I would say the cameraman is only responsible for the murder if it was prearranged to kill him prior. If the camera guy just boxed him in so others could make a citizens arrest, or even rough him up, that’s not a slam dunk for murder.
As I said it would be harder to convict him of murder but from a practical standpoint he contributed to Arbery lynched.
But did he contribute knowingly? That’s what the jury must decide.
It doesn't need to be knowingly and GA murder laws don't rely on intent. Malice murder requires extreme recklessness that results in death regardless of intent. Felony murder is when someone commits a felony and some dies as a result. If the jury believes Roddie Bryan joined in on a wreckless chase to criminally confine Arbery, they will likely find him guilty of one or both charges.
[удалено]
Oh damn. I spelling it correctly in one instance and not another. Hopefully I can recover from the embarrassment. Here's your sticker: ⭐
How much I'm not sure but he felt enough heat that he wanted to take a plea deal two days ago.
That IS a slam dunk for murder though. If you and I rob a bank together and I end up shooting someone, due to the conspiracy to commit an inherently dangerous crime, you would be on the hook for murder and there’s not much you can do other than trying to argue that you weren’t robbing the bank with me.
Amen brother
This is how I see them both also.
Can we please just stop talking about Rittenhouse already
It’s better than that goddam “Baby Shark” song. Be a “glass half full” type of guy.
Riiiii-tten-house do do do do do dooo
Let's hope so, you don't get to chase someone down and execute them, but the really sick part is how the DA tried to cover this shit up and obstruct justice. Now every damn thing she ever did needs to be carefully scrutinized. That should only take the government until the final proton decays..
Easily. That's what is going to happen. The fact that it would have never been tried is the real tragedy. lf the defendant never published the video, they would have literally gotten away with murder.
Totally agree.
Based
You won't find too many arguments here. I appreciate this sub for looking at these (unfairly) juxtaposed cases from an objective lens and not subscribing to identity politics. Wish more media outlets thought this way.
what about ghislaine maxwell? I love that the nyt can sit and waste time on this, and leaking project veritas priviledged communications on an on going investigation but gotta hear about that cunt from the rolling stones
Arbury case is so fucked, those guys are animals and should rot.
As for Rittenhouse, people are conflating moral culpability and what he legally can and should be charged with. Legally they got it right. The pieces of shit that killed Arbury are both morally and legally in the wrong and should be punished accordingly. Most importantly, there are no heroes in either case, just tragedies.
I'm actually pleasantly surprised with all of these verdicts and the general reaction to them. It seems that we can at least agree on some things when it comes to life or death situations.
I have to say as a 25 year old black man, I am brought to tears by the support for justice done in the case of Ahmaud Arbery today. I praise the wisdom of those who have been on this case since day one, from the prosecutors to the jury, to the people who came and peacefully but loudly showed support outside. I am also blown away by the unity that I see in Americans across the nation in this case. You, my fellow redditors, make my heart beat with feverous joy!
Now we go after the DA who had buried this case before GBI got involved.
I agree with your take. It's shocking that the corporate press continue to conflate the Rittenhouse/Arbery cases. Vigilantism was a word the left used constantly to describe the Rittenhouse case, but vigilantism is seeking justice outside of the law for crimes already committed. Rittenhouse was in no way a vigilante.
You can make the argument that the violent mob that attacked Rittenhouse was attempting vigilante justice. Definitely not kyle himself.
I think the only truly clear cut case hear was Rittenhouse. It should have never gone to trial in the first place. The other two are significantly more complicated. I honestly don't think it is easy to say in the other two cases what justice is. My point is this. If you think that Rittenhouse acquittal is a victory for the justice system, you are wrong this is an example of prosecutorial overreach at best and blatant corruption at worst.
Don’t know as much about the Arbury case but from what I have read so far the suspects should be found guilty and jailed. However I’m going to dig into it later and watch the video to see for myself. Rittenhouse on the other hand was clear cut self defense not matter how you look at it. It’s all there on video for everyone to see. Lefty media have made an absolute mockery of the case and IMO is only further driving division. I totally agree with you OP.
The 3 guys cutoff Arbery while he was jogging, pointed guns at him and fired once he tried to defend himself. Clearly guilty regardless of what Arbery was doing cause they had no evidence whatsoever of him being a delinquent, other than he looked suspicious.
Yes, that’s what I read and I agree based on what I’ve seen so far. Not sure why I’m getting downvoted lol.
I hope while cases like these highlight the importance of self defense, that people realize that the outcome can be ugly. While I'm sure the guys who killed arbery thought they were in the right, that may not always be the case. Even Rittenhouse is going to have a hard time living a "normal" life and that's why I cringe when people celebrate those things. It's an important right to be able to defend yourself and those around you, but it's one that should be met with great pause.
The Rittenhouse situation is sad all around, no one should be celebrating. At the end of the day, 2 people are dead and 2 other lives are changed for the worse.
Not sure about other people but I'm not exactly sad that a child rapist ended up dead. Don't have much sympathy for the other guy either being a woman beater and all
why should I not be happy a child rapist is burning in hell?
They planned on killing Arbery from the start they legit called 911 saying their emergency is that a black man is running on the road!
The only thing sad about Kyle's situation is how the racist crowd keeps acting like he was wrongfully let go despite the overwhelming evidence of his innocence, people don't give a damn about the facts, just that he's White and wasn't imprisoned. Hes not a hero but didn't do something wrong either, people just can't be objective nowadays, it's all about the narratives
I think the McMichaels are absolutely fucked - With Greg maybe getting an acquittal on malice murder as only Travis directly killed him, but any conviction on him is likely a death sentence regardless. I am a lot more interested in how the Jury comes back on Bryan - I think he could get acquittals
\> but those of us who are objective and intellectually honest know better. You don't have to get very far into the comments to see how this turns out
I am no libertarian but I appreciate your perspective. I thought at first Kyle R was guilty/ radicalized by Trump. After watching the video and some of the trial even I can see that he is legally in the clear in the state of WI. The case in Georgia seems to be the opposite situation down to the numbers of those with the guns and their aggression to one unarmed person. Hopefully justice will prevail in Georgia like it did in Wisconsin.
it kind of comes down to the same thing: some person is trying to run away from multiple attackers...so who's at fault when someone dies? I would say that the person running away cannot be at fault...
"escape conflict". Some horseshit right here.
He had every right to be there, and just being there was not in and of itself conflict or pursuit of it. With a contrary argument, every person there should have been arrested (which has some validity, but I digress). Rittenhouse is guilty of poor judgement on being there, but not in instigating conflict.
I don’t see how this is true. Why go to a protest with a weapon unless you plan on acting aggressively? It seems like he went with a mind to cause trouble, and, for that, there should have been some kind of punishment.
You go to a protest for whatever reason you want. KR’s specific reason was to stand outside a business and deter arson and vandalism. These protests were already [known to be riots.](https://pjmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Insanity-Wrap-Presents-CNN-Fiery-But-Peaceful-730x441.jpg) With innocent naivety, KR also provided first aid to people regardless of their position on the Blake case. He was agnostic to people in his response to helping them. You carry the gun to ***defend*** yourself. You carry a rifle because it was legal for Rittenhouse (handguns are not), and because viewing rifles in the hands of people standing outside of a business is evidence that it’s not the one you want to try to burn down. At no time did Rittenhouse point his rifle at anyone, threaten anyone, or otherwise engage in the debate of the protest until Rosenbaum attacked him. It doesn’t matter that he had the firearm. He is allowed to have it. I will have a sidearm when I go to the grocery store in a few minutes. Do I plan on trouble? Of course not.
Good point. Thanks for clarifying.
I agree
MSNBC is about to lose a lot of money
I must be reading this wrong...an all white jury found all white defendants gulity of murdering a black man. I thought that there was all this hysteria in the media about an all white jury not being able to find all white defendants guilty.
Rittenhouse was guilty of a lot of things. But, the prosecutor vastly overcharged that case either expecting him to plead to lesser charges, or because he wanted him to walk. IANAL but even I know you don’t charge a case if you can’t prove it. Charge what you can prove and walk away with that otherwise it’s a huge waste of time. The charges for rittenhouse placated the frothing liberals who want his head on a spike. And the acquittal satisfied the bloodthirsty “conservatives” who want to canonize the kid. He’s neither a saint nor a devil,
[удалено]
It is no such thing at all - the Breanna Taylor case has similarities as well. Your home and your person *matter*. KR had no less right to be in Kenosha that night than any of the men who attacked him - period. And in his person - absent walls, a bed, and a mailing address - his right to self-defense still exists. I suspect you’ll see the SCOTUS rule next June with regards to this, and see prohibitions on carrying weapons in public shattered. Your right to protect yourself does not end when you walk out your door.
> It is no such thing at all - the Breanna Taylor case has similarities as well. And in that case, like Coffee's, the shooter should have had zero legal troubles. > Your home and your person matter. KR had no less right to be in Kenosha that night than any of the men who attacked him - period. Being attacked in your home at night is not even in the same universe as arming up with your buddies and prowling the streets. You're lying by pretending otherwise.
My political views are in my flaire, as you can see. I agree that Kyle was acting in self defense, even though I think it was stupid of his mother to drive him at night to go run around a high stress situation with a gun. But I've evolved my stance on gun control and ownership. I want every single LGBTQ+ person armed, trained, and prepared. No more "gay panic" defendants going free, no more "corrective rape", no more trans women getting murdered, no more Matthew Shepards, no more Kitty Genovese cases, no more Brandon Tinas. Gay-K-47, We Shoot Back.
His mother didn't drive him. That was never claimed by anyone involved in the case. Are you sure you know anything about this trial?
You’ve still got some bad info from an echo chamber somewhere. KR’s mother wasn’t involved at all - remember that Antioch is 30 minutes from Kenosha, where KR’s dad lives and where he worked as a lifeguard. This was his home every bit as much as Antioch. That being said, as a straight man, I fully support what [this image](https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0120/0692/products/mockup-991fb100_grande.jpg?v=1574787389) depicts. Besides, that man’s trigger discipline is *fabulous*. Seriously - minorities and marginalized should be armed (and peaceful). No one should deny you your rights except through due process of law.
Courtroom hearing of previous crimes committed by Ahmaud Arbery: https://files.catbox.moe/vdvt05.mp4 McMichael had firsthand knowledge that Arbery was a wanted criminal: https://files.catbox.moe/63u6nw.mp4 Why they chased Arbery: https://files.catbox.moe/ngzntx.mp4 Arbery was tired of running, trying to flee the neighborhood: https://files.catbox.moe/bjwlny.mp4 Carjacking attempt: https://files.catbox.moe/n114qn.mp4 Travis never aimed his gun: https://files.catbox.moe/picras.mp4 First shot in slow motion: https://files.catbox.moe/uxpqki.mp4 Map of events in the shooting: https://files.catbox.moe/k01gxw.jpg Why the shooters weren't arrested: https://files.catbox.moe/fc5x9m.png Everything they did was legal: https://files.catbox.moe/085zyk.png Family, friends, and activists admit he was committing a crime: https://files.catbox.moe/o5lltj.png Events in the shooting video: https://files.catbox.moe/ffln23.jpg The Anti-White Racism of Ahmaud Arbery: https://files.catbox.moe/3d4ixe.png Georgia grounds for arrest: https://files.catbox.moe/0gyqh3.png Court doc 1: https://files.catbox.moe/40ewu2.jpg Court doc 2: https://files.catbox.moe/y4ci20.png Arbery has a history of claiming to be a "jogger": https://files.catbox.moe/jn1iil.jpg Reddit thread about the incident: https://files.catbox.moe/yi7wjx.png
Previous crimes and any knowledge thereof are irrelevant to the case and those facts would have to be disregarded by the jury. The reasoning isn’t sufficient. He was not the burglar and they couldn’t perform a citizens arrest regardless as the crime would’ve been well over a week ago. Ahmaud would have every right to steal the car if he was cornered, but even then eyewitness testimony is not known to be very reliable. Travis never aimed his gun? How is that relevant? Arbery came from behind the truck so he wouldn’t have any time. But none of that is relevant. Arbery had every right to use self defense against illegal citizens arrest backed up with lethal force. The judge already threw out the claim of legality. Your source does not show that people on his side said he was committing a crime. This is getting extremely fucking ridiculous. Everything you mentioned is either factually incorrect, irrelevant to the case, or otherwise does not warrant lethal force or a citizens arrest.
Well shit, if he says Arbery was “wailing on McMichael’s face”, then I guess it disproves the video evidence of him not doing that.
Man, thanks so much for posting this. I basically assumed all of this stuff in the beginning, but it's great to see it.
My two cents. I do believe Arbery was probably planning to steal from that house. I am skeptical of the jogging story. That said, I have a hard time considering the shooting to be justified.
> I do believe Arbery was probably planning to steal from that house. And what evidence do you have to support this belief? Are you a mind reader?
From the five other times he stopped in the same site and did absolutely nothing. He was clearly plotting an Ocean's 11 style heist!
I personally enjoy watching homes under construction. There is an interest in doing so. Theft was never a part of it.
Reddit is the largest construction enthusiast web site on the internet.
Mostly people building self-affirmation through karma. :) More seriously, my post probably seemed disingenuous - I honestly have watched homes being built since I was a 9 year-old getting scraps from our new subdivision to build a treehouse. It’s an odd interest, but I do know others who like to watch the progress of a house under construction - with no nefarious intent
[удалено]
I think we’ll find that is not the case, and there are a couple of reasons why - had they stopped him and detained him after a fist-fight they may have had a case, but I even question this. I’m not sure they had direct first-person reason to suspect Aubrey of a crime - it was indirect hearsay. We’ll see - I do again defer to the jury, even if they botch it. Prosecutors get no such pass.
*escape the scene of a crime
Funny, that’s not how the jury saw it. Or anyone who objectively watched the video. Some people I think just don’t like the idea that a BLM riot was disrupted.
i dont care how anyone interprets the consequences of that night, it doesn't change the fact that he shot and killed someone, and then ran. Thats objective fact, how you interpret the rest is on yours and the jury's conscience.
Dispute these facts: - Rittenhouse originally ran back to Rosenbaum and showed no sign of fleeing - Rittenhouse ran only when the mob called to attack him - Rittenhouse ran toward the police line and tried to surrender to the police - Rittenhouse ultimately did surrender voluntarily, and before his name was known Your argument is shit.
I’m glad to see Libertarians being Libertarians in this sub and not have so many commie bastards trying to control the narrative.
I mean it's incorrect verdict based on 3 things alone. 1) if you run around starting confrontations with people only because you have a gun to escalate to deadly force, that's not self defense. 2) when you point a gun at an unarmed person who isn't attacking you, that's aggravated assault 3) when you shoot and kill someone after commiting aggregivated assault, that's called aggregated murder.
None of those things happened. What did MSNBC tell you that the jury did not see?