sundin13 said:
JWeinCom said:

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.

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.  



Around the Network
sundin13 said:
RolStoppable said:

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.

Wow. That's a cop-out in every sense of the word.

The only thing that topped this is JWeinCom's story about a person who got hit by a baseball bat and could immediately laugh about such a misunderstanding.



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

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

sundin13 said:
KLAMarine said:

As the victim, you keep calm and don't try to go hero mode when the odds are clearly stacked against you. Fast food workers are trained that during a robbery, they should comply with the robber's orders and not try to go hero mode. You give the robber what he's after, money, and shut the hell up! Let the robber know you don't plan to resist and hand over what the robber wants.

https://dps.usc.edu/safety-tips/suspicious-activity/robbery/

In this case, sounds like the gunmen were after answers if they did indeed ask Arbery to stop and that they wanted to talk to him.

Arbery was having none of it and had to run a considerable distance before he could get a chance to struggle for the gun. If I'm that far away from a gunman, I'm not gonna charge for the gunman because the gunman could at any point turn the gun on me. Not to mention that I'm outnumbered.

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?

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

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

JWeinCom said:
KLAMarine said:

As the victim, you keep calm and don't try to go hero mode when the odds are clearly stacked against you. Fast food workers are trained that during a robbery, they should comply with the robber's orders and not try to go hero mode. You give the robber what he's after, money, and shut the hell up! Let the robber know you don't plan to resist and hand over what the robber wants.

https://dps.usc.edu/safety-tips/suspicious-activity/robbery/

In this case, sounds like the gunmen were after answers if they did indeed ask Arbery to stop and that they wanted to talk to him.

Arbery was having none of it and had to run a considerable distance before he could get a chance to struggle for the gun. If I'm that far away from a gunman, I'm not gonna charge for the gunman because the gunman could at any point turn the gun on me. Not to mention that I'm outnumbered.

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?

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?

Runa216 said:
KLAMarine said:

Feel free to explain how I'm wrong at your earliest convenience.

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. 

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



KLAMarine 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?

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

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

JWeinCom said:

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?

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?

Runa216 said:

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. 

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

"In this situation, what rules are you suggesting?  What do I have to do as the victim?  What do I have to wait for before I could defend myself?  Should I have When should the gunman have a legal right to shoot me without legal repercussions?"

That was my question, and you responded with an example with robbers and that you shouldn't try to defend yourself... so that seems to me that you're saying that's a situation where someone can shoot without repercussions.

But pretty much every post you made seemed to indicate to me that you didn't think the killers should face any consequences.  If I misunderstood you on either point, then feel free to clarify your position.



JWeinCom said:

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

(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;


Around the Network
sundin13 said:
JWeinCom said:

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

(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.  



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?



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.



JWeinCom said:
sundin13 said:

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.

Remember that the bar for self defense is not whether an individual truly believed that they were in danger, or that they were met with unlawful force, but instead whether a reasonable person would believe that. Would a reasonable person believe that someone didn't have the right to self defense in this situation? Personally, if I were in that situation, I would expect that the person I was chasing may act in self defense. Recall that the shooter grabbed a gun before chasing the victim. That certainly implies that they thought that the victim might try to act in self-defense. They knew they were putting someone in a situation where they might feel they have to fight back.

I understand what you are saying, but I do think there is some relevant room to make determinations here and that was largely what I was getting at with my original post.

When we look at criminal code, there are certain natural questions that are brought up. Sometimes the answers to these questions may be obvious. You may believe it is obvious that the shooter had a reasonable belief that Arbery was acting unlawfully, but it is still a fact of the case which needs to be proven, and I don't think it is that black and white. Similarly, I think the answer to the other questions I posed in that original post are fairly obvious, but they still need to be proven in court.

Its like a series of conditions that need to be met. I'd say in this case there are roughly 10 of them that I've outlined so far. If all of the conditions are met, the individual is innocent. If not, the individual is guilty. As the prosecution, I wouldn't stake my case on refuting this point ("The shooter has a claim to self-defense because a reasonable person would believe that the victim was acting unlawfully in his use of force") however, it is still a relevant condition. The others that you've highlighted are much more likely to be pivotal to the case though.



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.

I should have been more clear. I didn't say HE was a cop, I was using examples of cops being needlessly aggressive with black people under guise of 'suspicion'. I wasn't talking about the specific instance you all were fighting over, but a more generalized reality of systemic racism being an issue. I should have been more clear, but upon rereading the post it wasn't exactly obtuse, you just decided to take something I said wildly out of context to prove your point. 



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