Now the cat is out of the bag. sundin13 and others misrepresented the case all along.

The problem in the current discussion is all the reverse racism that makes people side with the black guy by default.

Maybe we should just move on to another topic and call this one a tie, because I am feeling generous.

Runa revealed that the shooter was a cop. You and others have acted like the shooter was a civilian who doesn't have the same rights as a cop to enforce justice, such as an arrest.

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:

How you feel the victim should have been acting is entirely irrelevant. The relevant question is "Was Arbery legally allowed to act in self defense", and I don't think there is any argument against this. If there is, you certainly haven't presented it. If a fast food worker feels they are in danger and tries to grab the gun that the robber is pointing at them, the robber isn't suddenly legally allowed to shoot the worker.

What you think is best practice for victims is entirely irrelevant to the legal questions at hand...

Actually, for everyone's benefit, I'll just list out what I believe to be the relevant legal questions (If anyone has anything more, feel free to chime in):

1) Were the actors legally allowed to arrest Arbery?

2) Was Arbery legally allowed to act in self-defense?

3) Was the shooter legally allowed to act in self-defense?

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?

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. 

Good questions... I kinda wanna leave it up to the court at this point.

At least they're getting paid for their time...

Where did you get the idea that I thought the gunmen should get off without any charges? Was it a post of mine earlier in this thread?

Well until you break it down, I'm afraid I can't help you.

The problem with what you're saying is that self-defense does not mean you're responding to an actual threat.  Self-defense only deals with what was going on in the defendant's head.  Someone can be justified in self-defense even if the other party is not the aggressor.

For instance let's say a man has a girlfriend.  The man has a daughter in college, who the girlfriend does not know about.  The man also hasn't yet told his daughter about his girlfriend.  His wife passed a year ago, and he wasn't sure how his daughter would react to him dating again.

The father's birthday is this weekend.  Daughter comes home on Friday night to surprise her father but he's not home.  She texts him, but as it so happens, his friends took him out on a hunting trip to celebrate the big day.  He texts his daughter telling her this and that he won't be back until Sunday morning.

Meanwhile, the girlfriend bought the father who is a gun collector a shotgun for his birthday.  The gun is unloaded.  At midnight, the girlfriend enters the home with the shotgun in hand through the back door which she knows is usually unlocked.  She intends to leave the shotgun on the father's bed and begins walking up the stairs.  

The daughter hears foot steps.  As she knows her father is not going to be home she is scared.  She picks up a baseball bat she has in her room an opens her door.  As soon as she does she sees the girlfriend with the shotgun in hand.  Panicking, she swings the bat at the girlfriend's head.  The girlfriend drops the gun and says "ouch what the fuck". Then she explains the situation, and the two have a laugh about it.  

Everything worked out.  YAY!  But, suppose the girlfriend was angry about it, and wanted to press charges.  She almost certainly couldn't.  Even though the girlfriend was not the aggressor, and as far as we can tell did nothing wrong, the daughter still had a right to act in self-defense as considering the situation, her belief that she was in danger was reasonable.  Point being, one party being entitled to use self-defense does not mean the other party is necessarily the aggressor.  Not saying this is the same kind of situation, but the question we need to ask is whether the killer was the aggressor, and whether arbery had the right to use self defense really doesn't answer that.  

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

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.