So... if a robber shows up in your store and tries to rob you, and you try to disarm them and gets shot, the robber should not be charged with any crime?  The rule you're suggesting is that when someone has a gun they get to do what they like without criminal repercussions?

Naw, it's only 4 or 5 names long. And hey! You're on it!

I could, but everything I've read from you gives me the impression that you'll make up some long-winded rant about what I say, completely disregarding or resorting to hilarious logical fallacies to prove your point. Again, you're so far away from reality that it's genuinely not worth my time to put in the point-by-point breakdown that SpokenTruth and others have already done. 

I might as well be playing dodge ball with Flat-earthers where each ball is a globe for all the good it'd do either of us.

I've seen plenty of people who actually care about logic, rationality, and maturity in this very heated, very serious discussion. you are not one of them. 

Oh, you.

As an aside and not in response to any one person: I think a lot of you need to understand that there's a difference between not responding becuase a person doesn't have an argument and not responding becuase they realize it would be a waste of everyone's time.

I rarely respond to this thread despite having a lot to say because I've come to realize that I'm not dealing with people who have any interest in mature or rational discourse. this thread, for the most part, is just a battleground for people on either side of any topic that comes up to push their agendas and feel special by 'owning the libs' or 'owning the rednecks' or whatever.

there are a handful of people who are nonpartisan or are willing to concede some points or actually put the effort in to give real and tangible proof to back their claims, but without exception the rest of the discussion devolves into garbage arguments and piss-poor logic or just outright disregards the very real evidence.

Like I said above, I might as well be playing needle-darts with a non-vaxxer for all the good it'd do to actually actively participate in the 'debate' (which is really more of a shouting match) in this thread. I will continue to read and occasionally pop my head in, but for the most part I've accepted that no amount of time, effort, or proof will be enough to make even the slightest of dents in anyone's opinion on the matter. I salute SpokenTruth and others for their sacrifices to the cause, but I'd rather mostly remain an audience or bystander.

Inb4 someone argues that this is just me giving up despite me explaining in far more detail than I should why I would rather not sacrifice my time or sanity for this thread.

Actually, questions 1 and 2 are irrelevant.

Whether or not they had a right to arrest him, they are still required to exercise this legal right in such a way that will not create an undue risk of harm.  They are also not allowed to commit other crimes in their attempt to arrest him, for instance aggravated assault as they're being charged with.  Even if they had the right to make a citizen's arrest, whether they are allowed to chase him in a car or pull a weapon is debateable.

It really doesn't matter whether Arbery was allowed to act in self defense.  If someone does something that causes you to fear for your life, you are allowed to shoot him.  Even if what they were doing is legal.  Conversely, if someone is doing something illegal, you are not allowed to shoot them unless that illegal act makes you fear for your life.  The victim's state of mind is irrelevant.  

3 is really the only question that matters.  If they acted in such a way that was either illegal, of that was reckless and created a substantial risk of injury, they cannot invoke self defense.  Seems pretty clear they did.  Unless we suggest that people are allowed to chase people around with loaded weapons based on hearsay evidence of a non-violent crime.

Oh boy, I sure hope all of that was sarcasm.

Exactly the sort of thing that made me stop taking their posts seriously. Clearly either a troll or too far removed from reality to care. Either way, not a person I want to interact with. 

I think you are partially right about question 1, but I do think I was hinting at a legally relevant question even though I didn't express it well. A better wording would be something like "Did the actors have a legal right to arrest Arbery, and perform all of their subsequent actions including the chase and brandishing of weapons". I'm not really sure how to word it cleanly. That said, it is essentially an offshoot of question two in that the legality of the shooters actions plays into the question of whether Arbery was justified in acting in self defense.

Similarly, I also believe the second question is relevant in what it says about the third question. It is all a bit of a nesting egg situation, where the final question is the fundamental one, but the preceding two help to answer it. And the second question is important, because if the victim is legally justified in using self defense, it essentially brands the shooter as the aggressor. If the victim is not legally allowed to act in self-defense, this bolsters the shooters claim to self-defense. If the shooter is considered the aggressor, he has additional responsibilities before he is able to act in self defense himself.

To restate the questions at hand:

Primary Question:
Was the shooter legally acting in self defense?

Sub Questions (to aid in the determination of the primary question):
Did the actors have a legal right to arrest Arbery and perform all of their subsequent actions including the chase and brandishing of weapons?
Was Arbery legally allowed to act in self-defense?

And I also want to bring in some Georgian criminal statutes:

Simple Assault:

Literally nobody is doing that. You just assume that's the case becuase, as usual, that's your narrative. You don't WANT to believe systemic racism is an issue so you disregard any evidence of it while justifying it where you can't. This is a pretty clear example of improper handling of a potentially dangerous situation and yet you still have people bending over backwards to justify why shooting this man was appropriate while acting like his race was only relevant to the opposition (To you, they're using it as a defense, while disregarding the potential notion that the cop was using it as an excuse to shoot). you can't just assume one or the other. That's a pretty perfect example of 'moving the goalposts' in regards to your use of a logical fallacy. 

You can't say that Libs or Democrats or hippies or whatever are using 'he's black' as an excuse to justify the man's behaviour while also completely disregarding the potentially very real excuse of 'he's black' as the reason he was shot. THAT is why systemic racism IS such a pervasive problem in America. People like you being disingenuous in order to justify racism by reversing what other people say into an argument for your side.