re: Body cam footage of police interactions with Ahmaud Aubrey

quote:

---

I mean, it's kind of ridiculous to make claims about how weapons point to their lynching motivations but then ignore reasonable explanations for why they brought weapons because "it provides space to defend their actions."

I just don't understand these absolutist views. They're obviously the product of seeing this saga as a tool or argument for some larger political/social argument.

---

I‘m going to attempt to make the other poster’s argument another way:

1. The McMichaels has two choices if they believed Arbery needed to be arrested: they could call the cops and let the police handle it, or they could detain him on their own.

2. When you attempt a citizen’s arrest, you are accepting personal liability for what comes out of that attempt if the law is not 100% on your side. You are at risk of committing felonies if you use unreasonable force, or if you don’t actually have standing to detain that person in the first place.

3. By bringing guns, the McMichaels effectively decided that detaining Arbery was worth the risk of shooting him. It doesn’t matter if they were worried he might be armed - in fact, their statement to that effect supports the conclusion that they went into the confrontation prepared to use deadly force. They decided that risk was worth taking to detain Arbery. If that risk were not worth taking and you’re worried he’s armed, why pursue him in the first place?

4. How, then, can they possibly claim self-defense when he turns out to be unarmed? That’s like saying “you can’t shoot a fleeing thief in the back, but if you can outrun him and get him to charge towards you, you’re in the clear.” It’s absurd.

The fact that they were not the victims of Arbery’s alleged crime make it even more absurd. If they didn’t actually have sufficient grounds for a citizen’s arrest in the first place, it’s even MORE absurd.

I don't really disagree with you, but my response:

1) As is common in discussions about this shooting, people jump in and conflate arguments. The chain you're responding included no argument that self-defense or citizen's arrest reduced the culpability of the McMichaels.

2) Rather, the argument began with a discussion of lynching, or more specifically, whether the McMichaels likely had any real intent to commit murder when they set in motion the events that led to Arbery's death.

3) My point was and is that it's highly likely the McMichaels brought weapons without any serious contemplation to the idea of killing Arbery. This is a crucial piece in my belief that the McMichaels are far more likely to be unconsciously biased vigilante hero complex rednecks than cold blooded racist murderers.

4) There are a host of "put yourself in their shoes" reasons one might bring weapons - concern he might be armed (at least initially), concern they couldn't apprehend him without guns or "who knows what we're getting into, best be prepared." These are all reasonable explanations/alternatives to "we're going to go lynch a black man".

5) Reasonable, as used, means reasonable in this conversation - things that make some sense to us, in a vacuum, as non-lynching motivations. It does not mean "the choice was reasonable in context at the time." It means we can relate to the motivation as not particularly nefarious even if we think it was a bad decision.

6) The biggest issue with all of this is that we're reconstructing motivations/thoughts that the McMichaels may have never had. More than likely, there was no "let's go put it to this black guy and if we have to kill him, so be it." Nor was there likely a "Does he have a gun? He might, let's bring guns." Most likely it was two guys wired in a way where they bring guns to a dicey situation (even of their own making) without much more consideration than that.

quote:

---

Its just that you cant gun someone down in the street

---

He wouldn't have been gunned down if he didn't charge and attack a person with a gun in there hands.

quote:

---

He wouldn't have been gunned down if he didn't charge and attack a person with a gun in there hands.

---

Maybe. But let some dudes chase you up and down some streets in their trucks while pointing guns at you. You may get to a point where you think they aren't going to stop chasing you and your chances of getting out of it alive are better if you try to disarm the guy with the shotgun. I'm not saying it's what I would probably do in that situation, but I can reasonably understand why someone may choose to do that.

People on this board just think it's totally normal for a citizen to drop to their knees when non-law enforcement points a weapon at them. When you see your life is in jeopardy, you either fight or flight. He fought. He lost. And his murderers should be punished for it.

quote:

---

Barstools

---

quote:

---

El Magnifico


He wouldn't have been gunned down if he didn't charge and attack a person with a gun in there hands.

---

quote:

---

The guy was a piece of shite wanna be gangster. The world is a better place without him on it

---

So you don't believe in redemption. I was a piece of shite who had a few run ins with the law when I was younger but I straightened up and got my shite together. I feel the world is a better place with me in it.

quote:

---

But let some dudes chase you up and down some streets in their trucks while pointing guns at you. You may get to a point where you think they aren't going to stop chasing you and your chances of getting out of it alive are better if you try to disarm the guy with the shotgun. I'm not saying it's what I would probably do in that situation, but I can reasonably understand why someone may choose to do that.

---

It’s hard for me to fathom how a reasonable person can’t comprehend this.

quote:

---

I can’t believe there’s still people blaming the dude who was being stalked with guns drawn on him for having a legitimate fight or flight reaction

---

You have trouble reading? I didn't blame him at all. I even said it's easy to understand why he chose to go for the gun.