Obviously, Ahmaud Arbery could have legally shot the 3 men chasing him. Even if they had no weapons

[Sand Castle]

Joggers like Arbery from now on should carry AR 15s, someone chases them, shoot to kill.

Seems weird though, that the 3 men in the Arbery case should have been killed.

 

[tres borrachos]

Joggers like Arbery from now on should carry AR 15s, someone chases them, shoot to kill.

Seems weird though, that the 3 men in the Arbery case should have been killed.

I would not have cried if he did. The country needs fewer racist white men.

 

[KLATTU]

Joggers like Arbery from now on should carry AR 15s, someone chases them, shoot to kill.

Seems weird though, that the 3 men in the Arbery case should have been killed.

They would have to do more than chase them, they would have to threaten them in such a way as to cause them to defend themselves. That's the law.Why do lefties have such a hard time understanding this?

 

[WillyPete]

Joggers like Arbery from now on should carry AR 15s, someone chases them, shoot to kill.

Seems weird though, that the 3 men in the Arbery case should have been killed.

These men were too cowardly to chase an unarmed Arbery without their weapons, so it's hard to imagine how that scenario would develop.

 

[Sand Castle]

I would not have cried if he did. The country needs fewer racist white men.

You think the 3 men would have chased Arbery if he had an AR 15 slung over his shoulder?

 

[Sand Castle]

They would have to do more than chase them, they would have to threaten them in such a way as to cause them to defend themselves. That's the law.Why do lefties have such a hard time understanding this?

No just chasing, already established

 

[KLATTU]

No just chasing, already established

i'm not following? It seems you are trying to make some point, but I don't know hat it is.

 

[Sand Castle]

i'm not following? It seems you are trying to make some point, but I don't know hat it is.

Hmmm, my point and observation of recent legal precedent is clear.

I'm not sure the point your making.

Blunt: Chasing someone by unknown persons, is threatening, thus the OP.

After all we recently had a man chasing a boy with a bar of soap, now he's dead

 

[independentusa]

They would have to do more than chase them, they would have to threaten them in such a way as to cause them to defend themselves. That's the law.Why do lefties have such a hard time understanding this?

They were doing more than just chase him, they were doing so in vehicles and trying to cut him off and stoop him. It would have been self defense, but the fact he was black, he would probably been tried and convicted of murder.

 

[Rexedgar]

Arbery jogging with a weapon…….

 

[KLATTU]

It would have been self defense, but the fact he was black, he would probably been tried and convicted of murder.

"objection: conjecture"
"sustained"

 

[KLATTU]

Hmmm, my point and observation of recent legal precedent is clear.

I'm not sure the point your making.

Blunt: Chasing someone by unknown persons, is threatening, thus the OP.

After all we recently had a man chasing a boy with a bar of soap, now he's dead

II don't know the case but I'm sure there is more to it than what you say.
Legislators are free to re write the self defense laws, but I'v never seen any recommendations that prevent accidents yet still allow for the right to defend oneself

 

[Sand Castle]

II don't know the case but I'm sure there is more to it than what you say.
Legislators are free to re write the self defense laws, but I'v never seen any recommendations that prevent accidents yet still allow for the right to defend oneself

If the 3 men that went after the innocent jogger were unarmed, then confronted him what do you think would have been the outcome

 

[Mr Person]

Joggers like Arbery from now on should carry AR 15s, someone chases them, shoot to kill.

Seems weird though, that the 3 men in the Arbery case should have been killed.

And in such circumstances, I think we know which DP members would pump out threads twisting it into "black man hunts down and viciously murders three innocent (christian white male) Patriots" . . .

 

[KLATTU]

If the 3 men that went after the innocent jogger were unarmed, then confronted him what do you think would have been the outcome

well if nobody was armed, there'd be a lot fewer violent incidents, but that's never going to happen so irrelevant.

 

[Fishking]

No just chasing, already established

No it wasn't. Just more lies and ignorance on your part.

 

[Sand Castle]

No it wasn't. Just more lies and ignorance on your part.

The fact is the only Rittenhouse survivor testified he was attempting to disarm an active shooter. The other two were unable to say their intentions.

But, certainly many somehow knew better on theses men and their intentions

 

[Deuce]

They would have to do more than chase them, they would have to threaten them in such a way as to cause them to defend themselves. That's the law.Why do lefties have such a hard time understanding this?

They clearly were doing that.

 

[Fishking]

The fact is the only Rittenhouse survivor testified he was attempting to disarm an active shooter. The other two were unable to say their intentions.

But, certainly many somehow knew better on theses men and their intentions

We don't need their words to know their intentions. We had video and testimony of it. Rosenbaum went for his gun after verbally threatening to kill him and right when another person near by fired their weapon. The other person struck Rittenhouse in the head with a weapon, and the next one pointed a gun at him from about two feet away.

 

[KLATTU]

The fact is the only Rittenhouse survivor testified he was attempting to disarm an active shooter. The other two were unable to say their intentions.

But, certainly many somehow knew better on theses men and their intentions

There is nothing about Kyle’s conduct prior to his being knocked to the street and attacked by “jump kick man,” Huber, and Grosskreutz that would indicate that Kyle had either shot or attempted to shoot multiple people.

Indeed, the only firing he had done was into the body of Joseph Rosenbaum, in a period of 0.76 seconds, under circumstances where Kyle was pleading “friendly, friendly, friendly” while being relentlessly chased down by a murderous Rosenbaum lunging for Kyle’s rifle.

That is as far from the conduct of an “active shooter,” as that term is officially used by the Federal government, as one might imagine.
There’s no evidence of Kyle as an “active shooter,” and there’s no evidence that would allow for a reasonable (even if mistaken) perception of Kyle as an “active shooter.” So any perception of Kyle as an “active shooter” could only have been irrational, speculative, and imaginative—and that’s not the basis for legal argument in court.

Possible Rittenhouse Trial Prosecution 'Hail Mary': Kyle Provoked the Attacks

Based on the evidence thus far, the state should not be allowed to argue 'provocation,' but that doesn't mean it won't try as the rest of its case collapses.

legalinsurrection.com

In other words, if KR had actually done anything to show he was an an active shooter and one of those 3 had attacked him because of that, he would have lost the legal right to self-defense.

The jury dismissed the active shooter theory because the evidence didn't support it

 

[Josie]

Joggers like Arbery from now on should carry AR 15s, someone chases them, shoot to kill.

Seems weird though, that the 3 men in the Arbery case should have been killed.

Do you think most people disagree with this or something? Arbery had every right to defend himself that day.

 

[D_NATURED]

Merely following someone of whom you're suspicious should not be grounds for them shooting you. And, Merely being suspicious of a black person should not automatically label a white person "racist".

It's threads like this one that remind me how much I've come to detest the extremists on both sides. Common sense is no longer an American virtue, it's all partisan hyperbole and hypothetical bullshit. Meanwhile, gangs of dozens of people, many of whom are Black, are doing coordinated smash and grabs at various retailers and I can't help but think they are enabled by our nation's lack of moral continuity and common sense.

What I see today is a people who have forgotten that bad choices MUST have bad consequences. Instead, I see the right wing excusing treason, for instance, because the accused is very popular with them and I see the left excusing lawlessness by "under-served communities" because the police are very unpopular with them and every official act of authority is picked apart until it can be called racist.

In a perfect world, black joggers would not make us suspicious and gangs, of any color, who rob, burn or otherwise attack individuals and businesses would be met with a swift, overwhelming hand of justice and if armed robbers/attackers die in the act, so be it.

But, this is the USA, a place where binary politics leaves decent people having to either support one form of lunacy or the other. What an absurd conundrum we've created for ourselves where justice for all must first be filtered through our personal biases and unrelenting, blind advocasies. We deserve what we've created.

 

[KLATTU]

Merely following someone of whom you're suspicious should not be grounds for them shooting you. A

It isn't and you shoot someone and want to claim self-defense you better have a better reason than they were following you.

 

[Josie]

Hmmm, my point and observation of recent legal precedent is clear.

I'm not sure the point your making.

Blunt: Chasing someone by unknown persons, is threatening, thus the OP.

After all we recently had a man chasing a boy with a bar of soap, now he's dead

Chasing him and grabbing for his gun. Why do you keep minimizing Rosenbaum's role in this?

 

[Sand Castle]

We don't need their words to know their intentions. We had video and testimony of it. Rosenbaum went for his gun after verbally threatening to kill him and right when another person near by fired their weapon. The other person struck Rittenhouse in the head with a weapon, and the next one pointed a gun at him from about two feet away.

Verbally threatened to kill him, sounded like here say from the trial testimony.

Actually, a vet testified that Rosenbaum was harmless.

Chasing him and grabbing for his gun. Why do you keep minimizing Rosenbaum's role in this?

I saw on video Rosenbaum face planting after being shot.

I do believe Rittenhouse feared for his life and acted in his self defense.


What is disputable is all the conjecture concerning the 3 victims:

1. Each of their pasts made them men who were going to beat and kill Rittenhouse

2. Each of the victims deserved it because of their criminal past

3. Connecting the 3 victims to the looters Rittenhouse was there protecting from

4, The fact that each man was truly trying to get Rittenhouses gun away from him vs what?

5. Rosenbaum grabbed for gun

6. Skate board used to knock gun out of hand

7. Hand gun pulled to get Rittenhouse to drop gun