By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JWeinCom said:
sundin13 said:

While I don't disagree with you that there isn't a 1:1 correlation, I do still believe it is illuminating to have the answer to the question at hand, because lawfulness is relevant to self-defense. I was simplifying too much, and I will acknowledge that though.

"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. "

This is an incorrect statement on my part.

I do still believe that everything else that I said is accurate though. If Arbery was not legally acting in self-defense, it would bolster the shooter's defense. That is because in relation to self-defense, you must believe that the potential harm you are avoiding will be the result of an unlawful action. The fact that the action was in fact unlawful is beneficial in proving this fact. You stated earlier: "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.". This is true, but incomplete, because you if what they were doing is legal, you have to have the reasonable belief that it is not in order to legally act in self defense.

Whether Arbery was justified however does not automatically make the shooter the aggressor. It may imply it, but it does not prove it.

Relevant bit of criminal code:

Self Defense

(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force;

But if Abery was justified in using self-defense, as you correctly stated, all that means was that he believed that the killer was engaged in or was about to commit an illegal act.  It doesn't actually mean he was going to do anything illegal. 

What needs to be determined is that the killer's actions were actually unlawful or aggressive.  I don't see how Arbery's perspectives on the matter helps us. 

Pointing to my example, the daughter in that case would 100% have had a justifiable belief that she was at risk of an imminent and unlawful attack, but in fact she was not.  

The point I am making about whether Arbery had a valid self-defense claim is not one which is meant to state whether the shooter was going to commit an illegal act. It is a statement regarding the fact that Arbery was not going to commit an illegal act. There is certainly an argument about whether the shooter would have reasonably believed that Arbery was going to commit an illegal act, but if Arbery did in fact commit an illegal act by not having a valid self-defense claim, then that would largely answer that question.

Does that make sense?