vivster said:
RolStoppable said:

1) I'd say yes. From what I've read, there were enough grounds for legitimate suspicion.

2) No. The guy with the gun hadn't fired a shot yet. At the time Arbery began to act in "self-defense", it was not clear yet if the guy with the gun had an actual intention to use his gun.

3) Yes, because of 2.

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 got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II

Around the Network

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.

Last edited by RolStoppable - on 15 May 2020

Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

JWeinCom said:
sundin13 said:

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?

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.

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:

(a) A person commits the offense of simple assault when he or she either:
   (2) Commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.
Aggravated Assault:
(a) A person commits the offense of aggravated assault when he or she assaults:
   (2) With a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury.
Self Defense:
(b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:
   (2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or
   (3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.
I believe that the shooter would have been guilty of Aggravated Assault in this instance (before the shooting), by "committing an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury", "with a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury. As such, he is unable to claim self defense, both because he was in the commission of a felony (aggravated assault is a felony), and because his actions placed him in the role of the aggressor and he was not able to withdraw before lethal force was utilized.
EDIT: For some reason my formatting broke at the end of the post and it won't let me fix it. Anyways, I believe you could also argue that the shooter could be guilty of attempted false imprisonment if one felony isn't enough for you:
False Imprisonment:
(a) A person commits the offense of false imprisonment when, in violation of the personal liberty of another, he arrests, confines, or detains such person without legal authority.
Criminal attempt:
a) A person commits the offense of criminal attempt when, with intent to commit a specific crime, he performs any act which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that crime.
Last edited by sundin13 - on 15 May 2020

RolStoppable said:

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.

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. 



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II

Around the Network
Runa216 said:
RolStoppable said:

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.

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. 

If the shooter was a cop, then that changes the context dramatically. A cop is allowed to arrest people.

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



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

RolStoppable said:

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

Please elaborate, as I am not sure what specifically you are accusing me of.



RolStoppable said:

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.

It's not really about the color but I would usually not side with the person who shoots an unarmed person.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

sundin13 said:
RolStoppable said:

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

Please elaborate, as I am not sure what specifically you are accusing me of.

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.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

RolStoppable said:
sundin13 said:

Please elaborate, as I am not sure what specifically you are accusing me of.

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.

Runa was incorrect. He wasn't a cop at the time of the incident.