Nope.  Check the forum rules, there are no justification statutes :p

If you don't want to meet my personal standards, that's fine. Allow me to tell you what you just told me: you are free to not participate.

I have my standards and I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head demanding that they meet my standards.

If you want to believe mere hearsay, do so at your own risk. If you want to persuade me, you have to go the extra mile. Ignore my posts if you don't want to bother going the extra mile.

By the way, I'd love to see the day a lawyer in court, when given the chance to present their case, asks the jury to 'google it' rather than actually putting together some sort of case or having within reach that which holds up their claims.

"assuming a civilian that shot somebody was in the wrong isn't biased. People just shouldn't be shooting other people, full stop"

>Well we don't live in a perfect world. Sometimes, people shoot other people for evil reasons. Other times, they do it for good reasons.

I could assume the former was done for evil reasons and would be right. I could assume the same for the latter case and I would be wrong.

Assuming someone who shot someone else was in the wrong based solely on the fact that the act was a shooting is a biased point of view.

If you don't want to meet my personal standards, that's fine. Allow me to tell you what you just told me: you are free to not participate.

I have my standards and I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head demanding that they meet my standards.

If you want to believe mere hearsay, do so at your own risk. If you want to persuade me, you have to go the extra mile. Ignore my posts if you don't want to bother going the extra mile.

By the way, I'd love to see the day a lawyer in court, when given the chance to present their case, asks the jury to 'google it' rather than actually putting together some sort of case or having within reach that which holds up their claims.

I try to give people the same benefit of the doubt that I expect from others. There are certainly times when I ask someone for more information or a source for what they are saying, but it always in service of a point or an argument. There is always something I am trying to say to contribute to the discussion instead of just trying to satisfy myself with this information. So when someone else asks for more sources or more information, I'll do what I can to assist, in the expectation that they are going to contribute in some way. When they don't, I feel like that's pretty shitty.

That said, its kind of ridiculous that you are trying to discredit all the information we do have as "mere hearsay" just because it isn't on video. When someone says "I said this and I did this", that is not hearsay. It is actually direct evidence and it would, 100% of the time, be admissible in court. There is no substantive or legal justification to ignoring this information that we do have. It is important to take into consideration that this is the actor's account of what happened, and it is possible that they were lying to protect themselves, but when that account is incriminating, there isn't really any reason to believe that the truth would make them look less guilty.

As for your last statement, we aren't in court and you are not a jury member. Your role in this conversation is not to be the trier of fact or to passively sit back and see if you will be convinced. Your role is closer to that of the lawyer. You are assumed to be a contributing party to a discussion, who is making a point or an argument. I'd love to see a defense lawyer, wholly unprepared for court, asking for the prosecution to spoonfeed them information so they can maybe make a case...

Actually I wouldn't. That would suck.

And it does.

This conversation sucks.

No.  Assuming that someone shot someone was in the wrong based on the fact that they shot someone is the way the law works.  Shooting someone is in fact illegal.  If you do something illegal, you have to explain why it was justified.  That's the whole purpose of a legal defense.

Again, I have to ask, what legal standard are you suggesting?  The standard you seem to be suggesting is that you can walk up to a person with guns drawn, and if they then respond in a way that makes you feel threatened, you have the right to shoot them.  And that's absolutely absurd and has no basis in our legal system.  

"Your role in this conversation is not to be the trier of fact or to passively sit back and see if you will be convinced. Your role is closer to that of the lawyer. You are assumed to be a contributing party to a discussion, who is making a point or an argument."

>My role is whatever I want it to be. If all I want to do is ask questions about the discussion, I can do that. Good news is no one is under any obligation to answer my questions. They can completely ignore if they wish.

So, you are allowed to drive after someone with guns drawn, and the person you were chasing (who has no possible way to know if you are planning on harming them or not) is responsible if they try to disarm you?

"Your role in this conversation is not to be the trier of fact or to passively sit back and see if you will be convinced. Your role is closer to that of the lawyer. You are assumed to be a contributing party to a discussion, who is making a point or an argument."

>My role is whatever I want it to be. If all I want to do is ask questions about the discussion, I can do that. Good news is no one is under any obligation to answer my questions. They can completely ignore if they wish.

The other way around: the standard I'm suggesting is you cannot walk up to a person who is armed, lunge for the firearm, struggle for the firearm, and then act surprised when you get shot.

The video showed Arbery walking up to the parked truck, not the other way around.

"Your role in this conversation is not to be the trier of fact or to passively sit back and see if you will be convinced. Your role is closer to that of the lawyer. You are assumed to be a contributing party to a discussion, who is making a point or an argument."

>My role is whatever I want it to be. If all I want to do is ask questions about the discussion, I can do that. Good news is no one is under any obligation to answer my questions. They can completely ignore if they wish.

So, you are allowed to drive after someone with guns drawn, and the person you were chasing (who has no possible way to know if you are planning on harming them or not) is responsible if they try to disarm you?

Except that it is undisputed that they were following him. With guns.  They themselves have attested to as such which is why they are being charged with aggravated assault.  He did not walk up to them until they drove after him, parked in front of him, and exited the vehicle with a weapon drawn. This is a felony, aggravated assault.

By that point, it is entirely reasonable, whatever may have been said, that he may have been afraid of force being used against him, and he would have been completely justified to act in self defense.  

So, you are allowed to drive after someone with guns drawn, and the person you were chasing (who has no possible way to know if you are planning on harming them or not) is responsible if they try to disarm you?

I'm just explaining why you are a bad conversation partner and why pretty much everyone you spoke to in this thread got frustrated with you. You can continue being a bad conversation partner. That is entirely your prerogative, but you should expect that most people won't take too kindly to you wasting their time.

As long as 100% of it isn't on video, you're good to go!

Oh, you.