Ahmaud Arbery murder case

[Lotta Booze]

Oh well. IIWII.

You enjoying arguing with yourself bwelbo?

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

You did say that someone yelling at someone, exiting their vehicle with a gun, and approaching them would not cause a "reasonable apprehension of of immediately receiving a violent injury". You specifically said that it would not. I can point to that post if I need to. I'm not the one who is lying.

As I requested before, please give me one scenario in which McMichael was legally justified in chasing Arbery with a gun. I cannot think of any possible scenario in which it would be legal. If you can't think of any possible scenario, even if highly unlikely, why do you believe that one exists?

I am confident that there are things about the case that we don't know also. However, if there isn't even an imaginary way that McMichael could have been justified in armed pursuit of Arbery, then no facts of such a thing will arise.

The fact is that we don't know what we don't know, and just because you can't think of a valid reason why the Mcmichaels would be making a citizens arrest, that doesn't mean there isn't one.

Also I question your premise that the McMichaels were "chasing" Arbery at the time of the confrontation. As they also said in the police report, they just wanted to stop Arbery to talk to him, and if I'm confronting a possible criminal in my neighborhood, you can bet that I'm to armed.

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

That is the way it works. If you are at a bar and you break a beer bottle, point the shards at another patron, and tell him that you are going to cut his throat off, a prosecutor would have to present that to a jury and let the jury decide if it caused a "reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury". (It probably wouldn't get that far and would probably involve a plea agreement.)

In this case, there were two guys in a truck and another in a car that chased and blocked Arbery. The guys in the truck were yelling at him to stop, and the driver got out of the truck with a shotgun and approached him. If I were on a jury and presented with that scenario, I would say that it did create a "reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury".

Ok, and I would say they wouldn't.

And I still don't think that the McMichaels created a "reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury."

However, your accusation was "You did say that you would not be concerned if someone chased you with a gun while yelling "STOP".

To me, being concerned and creating a "reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury." are 2 totally different things. Do you not see the difference?

 

[RonJohn]

The fact is that we don't know what we don't know, and just because you can't think of a valid reason why the Mcmichaels would be making a citizens arrest, that doesn't mean there isn't one. .

They didn't describe any to the police when the police arrived. If he had been shooting at neighbors don't you think they would have mentioned that to the police? They didn't even tell the police that they thought he was trespassing. They simply stated that their had been a rash of burglaries and that Arbery matched a video of the person who committed the burglaries. As I have stated before, you have to have personal knowledge of a crime to make a citizen's arrest in Georgia. To pursue and arrest a fleeing suspect, the crime has to be a felony. The McMichaels haven't described a crime they saw him commit just before the pursuit. In fact, the younger McMichael wasn't even outside to view any crime if one had been committed. As such, he could not legally make a citizen's arrest based on anything his father told him.

I wasn't asking you tell me what justification they legally had to pursue Arbery with guns. I asked you for any possible scenario you could imagine that would legally justified them pursuing him with guns. Since you are deflecting the request, I suppose you can't think of any possible scenario either.

Also I question your premise that the McMichaels were "chasing" Arbery at the time of the confrontation. As they also said in the police report, they just wanted to stop Arbery to talk to him, and if I'm confronting a possible criminal in my neighborhood, you can bet that I'm to armed.

A person can legally talk to anyone they want to, however under Georgia law you cannot detain anyone. If Arbery didn't want to stop and talk to them, he has no legal obligation to. If the McMichaels wanted to force him to stop, that is false imprisonment under Georgia law.

Being armed when confronting a possible criminal is a good idea. Having a gun in the open and confronting a possible criminal is not a good idea. If you approach a person, criminal or not, with a gun in your hands and you become agitated, that person can act in self defense. If you approach a person and he has a reasonable belief that you might harm him, he can legally shoot you. When I have carried a piston, my philosophy has always been that if in a confrontation, the other person would not see my firearm until I am in the motion of shooting him. Pure and simple, the only time the gun comes out of the holster is in the act of shooting someone.

 

[RonJohn]

And I still don't think that the McMichaels created a "reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury."

However, your accusation was "You did say that you would not be concerned if someone chased you with a gun while yelling "STOP".

To me, being concerned and creating a "reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury." are 2 totally different things. Do you not see the difference?

So what if you are in Atlanta and two black men stop their car next to you and jump out with guns? You wouldn't think that they might harm you? At what point would you begin to think they might harm you? After they shoot at you? Not until they point the gun at you? When they say they are going to shoot you? That is exactly the same scenario. If one of those causes enough concern, then they both do.

What should Arbery have thought about the younger McMichael jumping out of the truck with a shotgun? In what possible way could chasing him in a truck, yelling at him, and then approaching him with a gun not be perceived as aggresive?

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

A person can legally talk to anyone they want to, however under Georgia law you cannot detain anyone. If Arbery didn't want to stop and talk to them, he has no legal obligation to. If the McMichaels wanted to force him to stop, that is false imprisonment under Georgia law.

Being armed when confronting a possible criminal is a good idea. Having a gun in the open and confronting a possible criminal is not a good idea. If you approach a person, criminal or not, with a gun in your hands and you become agitated, that person can act in self defense. If you approach a person and he has a reasonable belief that you might harm him, he can legally shoot you. When I have carried a piston, my philosophy has always been that if in a confrontation, the other person would not see my firearm until I am in the motion of shooting him. Pure and simple, the only time the gun comes out of the holster is in the act of shooting someone.

I think he just forgot his shotgun holster.

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

So what if you are in Atlanta and two black men stop their car next to you and jump out with guns? You wouldn't think that they might harm you? At what point would you begin to think they might harm you? After they shoot at you? Not until they point the gun at you? When they say they are going to shoot you? That is exactly the same scenario. If one of those causes enough concern, then they both do.

What should Arbery have thought about the younger McMichael jumping out of the truck with a shotgun? In what possible way could chasing him in a truck, yelling at him, and then approaching him with a gun not be perceived as aggresive?

Make up your mind. You said previously that Arbery probably didn't see a gun until he was at the front of the truck and that was possibly why he ran up to the men. And now you're saying that he knew they had guns as he was running down the street toward them?

 

[RonJohn]

I think he just forgot his shotgun holster.

Then the thing to do is not remove it from the truck until he was certain that he needed it. A shotgun is not a good weapon for such a scenario. If you intend to use it for protection, you have to have it out before someone with a pistol pulls theirs. However, if you have it out you are committing assault which legally justifies the other person to pull out their weapon.

These are things that I thought about thirty years ago when I first got a concealed weapons license. If my gun was visible and someone wanted to mug me, they might shoot me before asking for my wallet. Don't let a potential mugger see that I have a weapon. If someone pulls a gun on me, I would shoot them before they realized I had a gun also. That also made me realize that if I pulled my gun out first, I would be giving justification to the other person shooting me.

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

Then the thing to do is not remove it from the truck until he was certain that he needed it. A shotgun is not a good weapon for such a scenario. If you intend to use it for protection, you have to have it out before someone with a pistol pulls theirs. However, if you have it out you are committing assault which legally justifies the other person to pull out their weapon.

These are things that I thought about thirty years ago when I first got a concealed weapons license. If my gun was visible and someone wanted to mug me, they might shoot me before asking for my wallet. Don't let a potential mugger see that I have a weapon. If someone pulls a gun on me, I would shoot them before they realized I had a gun also. That also made me realize that if I pulled my gun out first, I would be giving justification to the other person shooting me.

The shotgun was probably all he had at the moment and leaving it in the truck until you got shot or attacked by a criminal wouldn't do you much good.

 

[RonJohn]

Make up your mind. You said previously that Arbery probably didn't see a gun until he was at the front of the truck and that was possibly why he ran up to the men. And now you're saying that he knew they had guns as he was running down the street toward them?

When did I say that he knew they had guns as he was running down the street? I also said that he might not have seen them until that point because: The older McMichael pulled his out in the back of the truck about the time of the struggle, and the younger McMichael was driving up until the point where he exited the vehicle with the shotgun in his hands. It would have been difficult for Mcmichael to drive and hold a shotgun in one hand at the same time.

Most of what I have stated are basic facts that are known: The McMichaels were aggressively pursuing Arbery based on statements made by the McMichaels. McMichael approached Arbery with a gun in his hands based on the video, which is assault by statute in Georgia. In order to make a citizen's arrest in Georgia, you must personally witness a crime in progress, not a suspected crime, not a crime from a week ago, not a crime your father told you he saw, etc.... In the execution of a citizen's arrest in Georgia you cannot use any more force than is necessary to make the arrest.

I have even given you two or three opportunities to come up with an imaginary justification for the armed pursuit, but you haven't been able to think of any possible scenario in which armed pursuit was legally justified.

 

[RonJohn]

The shotgun was probably all he had at the moment and leaving it in the truck until you got shot or attacked by a criminal wouldn't do you much good.

But having the gun in your hands legally justifies another person shooting you. It is an entirely inappropriate weapon for the scenario. A concealed pistol in a holster would be appropriate. It could be hidden, but if the other person displayed a weapon, then you could shoot him. They didn't have the correct tools to use for what they wanted to do. They didn't understand the legal ramifications of what they wanted to do. They would have been much better off if they hadn't pursued him.

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

When did I say that he knew they had guns as he was running down the street? I also said that he might not have seen them until that point because: The older McMichael pulled his out in the back of the truck about the time of the struggle, and the younger McMichael was driving up until the point where he exited the vehicle with the shotgun in his hands. It would have been difficult for Mcmichael to drive and hold a shotgun in one hand at the same time.

Most of what I have stated are basic facts that are known: The McMichaels were aggressively pursuing Arbery based on statements made by the McMichaels. McMichael approached Arbery with a gun in his hands based on the video, which is assault by statute in Georgia. In order to make a citizen's arrest in Georgia, you must personally witness a crime in progress, not a suspected crime, not a crime from a week ago, not a crime your father told you he saw, etc.... In the execution of a citizen's arrest in Georgia you cannot use any more force than is necessary to make the arrest.

I have even given you two or three opportunities to come up with an imaginary justification for the armed pursuit, but you haven't been able to think of any possible scenario in which armed pursuit was legally justified.

According to the video, there was no armed pursuit and McMichael didn't approach Arbery with a gun. Mcmichael had a gun but Arbery obviously approached him. You keep saying it backwards. So since there is no armed pursuit, there is really no need for a justification.

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

But having the gun in your hands legally justifies another person shooting you. It is an entirely inappropriate weapon for the scenario. A concealed pistol in a holster would be appropriate. It could be hidden, but if the other person displayed a weapon, then you could shoot him. They didn't have the correct tools to use for what they wanted to do. They didn't understand the legal ramifications of what they wanted to do. They would have been much better off if they hadn't pursued him.

If I'm approaching a possible criminal in my neighborhood and all I have is a shotgun handy, I'm taking the shotgun.

 

[RonJohn]

If I'm approaching a possible criminal in my neighborhood and all I have is a shotgun handy, I'm taking the shotgun.

If you have a gun in your hands and you aggressively approach someone, that person would be justified in shooting you. I wouldn't matter if they were a criminal or just a travelling vacuum cleaner salesman.

I would suggest not leaving your property to pursue anyone. If you see a neighbor being attacked, that is a different matter.

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

If you have a gun in your hands and you aggressively approach someone, that person would be justified in shooting you. I wouldn't matter if they were a criminal or just a travelling vacuum cleaner salesman.

I would suggest not leaving your property to pursue anyone. If you see a neighbor being attacked, that is a different matter.

So even if there are kids playing outside in your neighborhood and you see someone walking around who you suspect of breaking into homes in your neighborhood, you do nothing? Just hope they don't hurt the kids till the cops get there?

 

[RonJohn]

According to the video, there was no armed pursuit and McMichael didn't approach Arbery with a gun. Mcmichael had a gun but Arbery obviously approached him. You keep saying it backwards. So since there is no armed pursuit, there is really no need for a justification.

No armed pursuit? Were they armed? Did they pursue Arbery? Yes and Yes. Going just by definitions of words, they were armed and they were in pursuit. I don't see what is confusing to you about that.

Did McMichael exit the truck? Did he stay at the door of the truck? Did he go to the front of the truck? Did he move toward the side of the road? He did exit the truck, move toward the front of the truck, and then turn towards the side of the road. Using Google, the dictionary definition of approach is "come near or nearer to (someone or something) in distance or time". McMichael didn't stay where he was, and he didn't move away from Arbery. They only thing left, "move nearer to" does indeed match the dictionary definition of approach.

I don't see how I am the one saying it backwards since I am dissecting the definitions of the words I am using and demonstrating that it does indeed match what happened. As I said before, I am not arguing based on any politics or any principle. I am using statutes and definitions and matching the available evidence to those definitions and statutes. You keep twisting words and definitions. Were the McMichaels armed? If not, why is this even a news story. Did the McMichaels pursue Arbery? Once again, if not why is this a news story. Did McMichael move further away from or closer to Arbery? Which direction fits the definition of "approach"?

 

[RonJohn]

So even if there are kids playing outside in your neighborhood and you see someone walking around who you suspect of breaking into homes in your neighborhood, you do nothing? Just hope they don't hurt the kids till the cops get there?

I wouldn't chase him in my car, and I wouldn't shoot him unless he did something aggressive. I might have my gun in my holster, but I wouldn't show it to him unless I was in the act of shooting him because showing the weapon would legally authorize him to become aggressive. I might walk outside and ask him what he is doing to try to scare him off. Most people who break into home and burglarize them don't do so in full view of people, even children. I would not kill someone because they maybe, might have, at some point done something that somebody told me might have happened.

Now if you ask me what I would do if someone were to break into my house with my inside, that is a different scenario altogether. If you ask me what I would do if I saw a child being kidnapped, that would be different altogether. If you asked me what I would do if i had my gun with me and someone started to shoot up the store I was in, that would be different altogether.

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

I wouldn't chase him in my car, and I wouldn't shoot him unless he did something aggressive. I might have my gun in my holster, but I wouldn't show it to him unless I was in the act of shooting him because showing the weapon would legally authorize him to become aggressive. I might walk outside and ask him what he is doing to try to scare him off. Most people who break into home and burglarize them don't do so in full view of people, even children. I would not kill someone because they maybe, might have, at some point done something that somebody told me might have happened.

Now if you ask me what I would do if someone were to break into my house with my inside, that is a different scenario altogether. If you ask me what I would do if I saw a child being kidnapped, that would be different altogether. If you asked me what I would do if i had my gun with me and someone started to shoot up the store I was in, that would be different altogether.

So you would just let it go unless they started doing something to a child or someone else in your neighborhood if all you had is a shotgun? I don't think I'd take a chance of it getting that far if it was me. And if he walks or runs out of your sight, is all well as long as you can't see him?

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

I wouldn't chase him in my car, and I wouldn't shoot him unless he did something aggressive. I might have my gun in my holster, but I wouldn't show it to him unless I was in the act of shooting him because showing the weapon would legally authorize him to become aggressive. I might walk outside and ask him what he is doing to try to scare him off. Most people who break into home and burglarize them don't do so in full view of people, even children. I would not kill someone because they maybe, might have, at some point done something that somebody told me might have happened.

Now if you ask me what I would do if someone were to break into my house with my inside, that is a different scenario altogether. If you ask me what I would do if I saw a child being kidnapped, that would be different altogether. If you asked me what I would do if i had my gun with me and someone started to shoot up the store I was in, that would be different altogether.

Really? Arbery ran up to the McMichaels and grabbed one of their guns, and they pursued him? You can throw out whatever technical definition you want of pursuit, approach, or whatever other synonym of choice, but that's not what I saw in the video, and I don't think your average juror is going to see it that way either.

 

[RonJohn]

Really? Arbery ran up to the McMichaels and grabbed one of their guns, and they pursued him? You can throw out whatever technical definition you want of pursuit, approach, or whatever other synonym of choice, but that's not what I saw in the video, and I don't think your average juror is going to see it that way either.

Chasing in a truck and cutting him off so he has to turn away, having someone else cut him off at another point, and then working themselves ahead of him to cut him off again. That isn't in the video, but that is how the McMichaels described the events. That fits the definition of pursuit to me. Does it somehow not fit your definition? If not, what definition of "pursuit" are you using that does not include chasing, cutting off, chasing again, and putting yourself in the path of the person being pursued? Will the jurors be able to see those descriptions that the McMichaels themselves gave?

Arbery had been chased by the McMichaels already, and had been cut off so that he had to turn around at least twice. When he got to the front of the truck, he went at the younger McMichael, who had exited the truck and appeared to be making his way to cut Arbery off on foot, with a gun in his hands.

McMichael was not walking to hunt turkeys with his shotgun, when he was attacked by a random man from the side of the road. He had been chasing Arbery and intended to stop him. (based on their own admission)

I will use basic definitions that maybe you can understand and let's see if they fit.

Pursue -- chase. Did the McMichaels chase Arbery, yes or no? Well see that fits the entire arguments I have been making about pursue.
Approach -- move closer to. Did McMichael move closer to or further away from Arbery? Well see that fits the entire arguments I have been making about approach.

You can believe that I am twisting definitions and making things sound like something that they were not. The McMichaels did pursue Arbery. They said so themselves. Are you going to argue with their own words? The younger McMichael did approach Arbery with a gun in his hands because he moved closer to Arbery while holding a gun. Are you going to argue that McMichael was moving away from Arbery?