- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Ahmaud Arbery had a history of claiming to be a jogger to cover for criminal activities.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 2:57 pm to LightMerchant
Posted on 4/7/21 at 2:57 pm to LightMerchant
quote:If we have a Georgia attorney, they can expound on local law, but (in general) the "aggressor" loses the right to make a claim of "self defense." Depending upon the pleadings, it seems likely that clan McMichael became "aggressors" by chasing Arbery thru the neighborhood while brandishing firearms. Determination of "aggressor" status is usually a fact question for the jury.
Slightly different topic, but when does McM lose his right to self-defense?
Does pointing a weapon as someone mean you lose your right to self-defense and have to allow the other party to kill you?
0
Posted on 4/7/21 at 3:09 pm to LightMerchant
quote:
Slightly different topic, but when does McM lose his right to self-defense?
When he became the aggressor.
AA is attempting to flee, MMs follow him and surround him. Jr point his weapon at AA from several yards away. This is going to be found to be a felony aggravated assault. You do not have the right to defend yourself while committing such a crime.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 3:12 pm to LightMerchant
quote:
The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the weapon fired as result of M pulling the trigger and not A pulling at the weapon. I don’t know that such is provable. Once a second party has hands on the firearm it becomes difficult if not impossible to prove which party caused the firing of the weapon.
Everything about this is wrong.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 3:40 pm to JohnnyKilroy
To clarify, if I punch a person I then legally have to allow that person to kill me if they so choose.
Is that the law?
What if I punch a person and in retaliation they attack my child. Am I precluded from intervening to protect my child because I initiated the violence?
Is that the law?
What if I punch a person and in retaliation they attack my child. Am I precluded from intervening to protect my child because I initiated the violence?
Posted on 4/7/21 at 3:43 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
Everything about this is wrong.
Well then educate me as to how it is incorrect.
Convicting M for shooting A doesn’t require proving that M in fact shot A?
Is it that the actions by M resulted in A grabbing the weapon and therefore even if A shot himself with the gun M is still accountable for A having shot himself with M’s firearm?
That’s the part I am struggling with- the possibility that Arbery shot himself. We don’t know that he didn’t.
( this is a fascinating case )
This post was edited on 4/7/21 at 3:46 pm
Posted on 4/7/21 at 3:50 pm to LightMerchant
quote:Of course not. You could always run like Hell.
To clarify, if I punch a person I then legally have to allow that person to kill me if they so choose.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 3:55 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Of course not. You could always run like Hell.
But if unable to flee I have to allow the person to kill me and cannot defend myself in any manner.
That, as I interpret it, is what I am being told by other posters.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 4:05 pm to LightMerchant
quote:
Is it that the actions by M resulted in A grabbing the weapon and therefore even if A shot himself with the gun M is still accountable for A having shot himself with M’s firearm?
In a nutshell, yes.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 4:09 pm to LightMerchant
quote:
But if unable to flee I have to allow the person to kill me and cannot defend myself in any manner.
You can do whatever the frick you want. But if you have committed questionable acts leading up to the final confrontation wherein someone is killed, you have a much higher probability of legal liability for that person being killed.
So if you get in your car and chase someone with guns and that’s based on your perception that they committed a crime, you’re recruiting a whole host of problems.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 4:09 pm to LightMerchant
quote:If you walk up and punch another person in the face, you cannot rely upon the doctrine of "self defense" to avoid either civil or criminal repercussions when he responds with violence toward you and you either kill or injure him.
But if unable to flee I have to allow the person to kill me and cannot defend myself in any manner.
That, as I interpret it, is what I am being told by other posters.
I just don't know how to make that more clear.
In this case, clan McMichael does NOT get to chase Arbery around the neighborhood waiving firearms and bumping him with their vehicles and then rely upon "self defense" if Arbery eventually replies with violence of his own.
quote:
16-3-21. Use of force in defense of self or others.
(a) A person is justified in ... using force against another when ... he ... reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself ... against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, ... a person is justified in using (deadly) force ... only if he ... reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:
(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;
This post was edited on 4/7/21 at 4:23 pm
Posted on 4/7/21 at 4:11 pm to LightMerchant
quote:
To clarify, if I punch a person I then legally have to allow that person to kill me if they so choose.
Is that the law?
Not at all. If you punch someone and they punch you back, the law doesn’t allow them to wail on you until you’re dead.
But if you pull a gun on someone and point it at them the law will allow the person to do a lot more, even including killing you.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 5:06 pm to JohnnyKilroy
Must be a lot of grey area.
I am walking down the street, I see a man walking behind me who is open-carrying, I perceive that as threat and thus can legally kill that person, in self-defense.
I am walking down the street, I see a man walking behind me who is open-carrying, I perceive that as threat and thus can legally kill that person, in self-defense.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 5:10 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
If you walk up and punch another person in the face, you cannot rely upon the doctrine of "self defense" to avoid either civil or criminal repercussions when he responds with violence toward you and you either kill or injure him.
You sure about that? This guy initially didn't get charged, but there was enough political pressure that they got him eventually.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-man-found-guilty-parking-lot-shooting-unarmed-black-man-n1045966
Posted on 4/7/21 at 5:11 pm to JohnnyKilroy
Because the potentially deadly punch doesn’t constitute as much threat as a firearm pointed in your general direction?
The potentially deadly assault, physical contact with life-threatening force, is not as great a threat as a firearm merely pointed at you with no assault and no life-threatening physical contact with your person.
Doesn’t seem right or logical.
The potentially deadly assault, physical contact with life-threatening force, is not as great a threat as a firearm merely pointed at you with no assault and no life-threatening physical contact with your person.
Doesn’t seem right or logical.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 5:14 pm to LightMerchant
quote:
am walking down the street, I see a man walking behind me who is open-carrying, I perceive that as threat and thus can legally kill that person, in self-defense.
None of this is in any way analogous to the Arbery case.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 5:16 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
I remember that. It's outrageous that he was convicted of anything.
It's ridiculous that he was charged, let alone convicted. The law may say what it says, but its execution is frequently corrupted by politics.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 5:17 pm to Flats
quote:
It's ridiculous that he was charged, let alone convicted. The law may say what it says, but its execution is frequently corrupted by politics.
DeSantis should pardon him.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 5:40 pm to TK421
quote:
It wasn't their property. And even if it was, you do not have the right to stalk and kill someone for trespassing after they leave.
"stalk and kill"? jesus, listen to what youre saying. they certainly didnt "stalk" him. they chased after him thinking he was the burglar. their only objective was to put an end to the recent burglaries by stopping whoever was responsible. They were on the phone with police-they wanted law enforcement to handle the situation.
What happened in the end is tragic, it escalated. but those two guys did not "stalk and kill" him. Thats a terrible way of describing what transpired. The video footage would have looked a lot different if they were there to stalk and kill him.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 5:55 pm to selfgen
They did kill him. They did chase him.
Is “chase and kill” way better than “stalk and kill?”
Is “chase and kill” way better than “stalk and kill?”
Page 24 of 30
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News