The US Politics |OT|

[JWeinCom]

sundin13 said:

JWeinCom said:

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?

It makes insofar as I undersand what you're saying, but legally, it doesn't really make a difference.  

I don't think there is any reasonable doubt that the killer was responding to what was in his mind unlawful force, regardless of Arbery's state of mind.  There's no way any prosecutor can defeat the self defense claim on that ground.

The only way to argue against it is to argue that he cannot invoke the self-defense claim because either he was committing a felony or he was the aggressor.  I don't see how Arbery's state of mind changes that.  For either of those claims you'd have to establish that he was the aggressor or was engaged in a felony at the very latest when he left the car.