Jogging in Georgia while black.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Tank said:
No matter what you think of the video or the event as you currently understand them, every decent person has to find the idea of murder charges being filed because of celebrity attention and public outcry chilling.
Click to expand...


Yes, but not in the way you mean.
 
Roboramma said:
I'm probably wrong, but I thought the difference between 1st and 2nd degree is premeditation. If you intentionally kill someone based on a decision to kill in the moment, that's 2nd degree, if you make a plan ahead of time, that's 1st degree.

Just saying my understanding, hoping to be corrected if I'm wrong, and learn something.
Click to expand...


A gun is a lethal weapon, brandishing is showing the intent to use a lethal weapon, the very act of brandishing it is to show intent to kill.
 
Darat said:
A gun is a lethal weapon, brandishing is showing the intent to use a lethal weapon, the very act of brandishing it is to show intent to kill.
Click to expand...

I agree with that 100%.

I'm commenting on the difference between pre-meditated murder (which I understand is how first degree murder is defined), and murder where the intent to kill (while present), happens in the moment, and isn't pre-meditated.

I think that it can get complicated though by a pre-mediated crime (they intended to stop him and threaten him with their weapons), and if that leads to murder, the murder may be first degree as well?
 
Planigale said:
The striking thing from a non-US basis is that shooting someone dead would not be subject to a trial. Any defence to killing someone should be presented at a trial. The default should be a trial. Only under the most exceptional circumstances should killing someone not be subjected to judicial review. Stand your ground etc. may be a defence to homicide but such a serious outcome should never be subject to an occult decision by police or prosecution authorities, even a grand jury since it is secret is not appropriate. If you kill someone even if it is justified the consequence should be a trial when you can justify the killing.
Click to expand...

In the interests of fairness I'll point out here that in the UK self defense killings (which of course are normally stabbing rather than shootings) don't always go to trial, but those that don't are far more clear cut, I can't think of an example that wasn't an intruder in a private home and involved a weapon of convenience.

This is pretty nit picky though and I otherwise agree that the way this was handled is staggering.
 
Please stop engaging with racists. They are not arguing in good faith and bring nothing but discord to the conversation. By replying to them you are amplifying their hateful message.
 
You know what, Skeptic Tank kinda convinced me on the pro-lynching argument.

If the system in GA fails to convict all three for murder, a local mob should string them up the second they set foot in public.
 
Darat said:
Onto someone’s property without the permission of the property owner? Surprised you are suggesting such an action.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting that action. Listing what can be done is an exercise, not a suggestion.

And what makes you think I have an issue with trespassing?
 
Last edited:
Arcade22 said:
See the problem with this line of reasoning is that there's no way that they could have conclusively known that he was a "bad person" or rather that he had committed a crime. Given how completely inexcusable their reaction was it doesn't matter who the victim was because it could have, principally speaking, been anyone.

People shouldn't get a lesser sentence for randomly shooting someone to death because it is subsequently determined that the victim had committed some crime or misdeed.
Click to expand...

Poor wording on my part.

What I was getting at was that

IF the surveillance video really exists
AND the surveillance video showed a felony in progress
AND the person on the video was Arbery

then I would have a different attitude toward the shooters. Even then, I would say they committed a serious crime, and I would still think of them as gun toting fools who are pretty dangerous. However, I would be less inclined to lock them up and throw away the key.

My guess is that of the three conditions described above, only the first one is actually true.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
Charges brought based on public outrage are inherently illegitimate.
Click to expand...

How about charges based on video evidence, and public outrage based on the same video evidence?

Do you expect the prosecution case to consist of establishing how outraged the public were?

If you are concerned that a decision to prosecute based on the evidence was only made due to public outrage (and others are concerned that a previous failure to prosecute was due to prejudice and permitted by a lack of public outrage) maybe it's time to consider whether it's best to have people who make decisions whether or not to prosecute to regularly need the public to vote for them to keep their job.
 
Sideroxylon said:
That’s what you get to present in court.
Click to expand...

To be fair, a huge problem in the United States is that going to court is an extremely expensive proposition. You have to hire a lawyer, which costs a whole heck of a lot of money, or you can rely on the public defender if you can't afford the lawyer, but it turns out the American judicial system is heavily stacked against the accused, and anyone with a public defender is basically assumed to be guilty, regardless of the supposed existence of the presumption of innocence.

In an ideal world, being accused of a crime that you didn't commit wouldn't be a huge deal. You would go to court, evidence would be presented, it would be clear that you were innocent, and other than some inconvenience it would be over. Unfortunately, that's not the case in the world we actually live in.
 
arthwollipot said:
And let's face it. You can't trust someone who seriously uses the word "burglarized".
Click to expand...
<digression> As someone familiar with the word "burgled", I agree "burglarized" always looks clumsy and absurd, but both words were formed from the word "burglar".

British-English users tend to assume the noun "burglar" came from the verb "burgle" but no, it happened the other way around. Otherwise it would probably be spelled "burgler".
 
Roboramma said:
It's unresolvable in the sense that you're not willing to admit that you're wrong.

It's not unresolvable in the sense that it's possible to show logically, based on the law and the facts of the case, that you're wrong, as has already been done in this thread.
Click to expand...

I don't think I'm wrong. There is a difference.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
I don't think someone legally carrying a firearm and going to legally attempt to detain someone they believe has just committed a crime (and committed others previously) who then ends up shooting and killing the person after being physically attacked and control of their firearm being threatened, is acting as "judge, jury and executioner" - I think they're acting as a concerned citizen looking out for their neighborhood and all the people in it, trying not to let crime get a foothold in it, and then reacting to preserve their own life when the criminal decides he "can't go back to jail" and attacks.



In neither case were the deceased "defending themselves against an armed assailant"
Click to expand...

That's where you are wrong, and I don't just mean that there is an opinion or belief difference. You are simply factually wrong. At most, they believed that he had previously committed crimes. They did not believe that he had committed any crime recently, with the possible exception of a mistaken belief that he had committed criminal trespass. Therefore, their attempted detention of the man was illegal. Somebody spelled out the law in great detail a few pages back.

It's really an open and shut case. They had no right to detain the man. They had no right to threaten the man. Even if you believe the very worst about the jogger, that he was responsible for multiple burglaries prior to this incident, they still have no legal leg to stand on.

But, just for good measure, it's worthwhile to remind you that there is no evidence in our possession that any burglaries even happened, much less that Arbery was responsible. Perhaps in the future we will discover that more evidence exists.
 
Meadmaker said:
To be fair, a huge problem in the United States is that going to court is an extremely expensive proposition. You have to hire a lawyer, which costs a whole heck of a lot of money, or you can rely on the public defender if you can't afford the lawyer, but it turns out the American judicial system is heavily stacked against the accused, and anyone with a public defender is basically assumed to be guilty, regardless of the supposed existence of the presumption of innocence.

In an ideal world, being accused of a crime that you didn't commit wouldn't be a huge deal. You would go to court, evidence would be presented, it would be clear that you were innocent, and other than some inconvenience it would be over. Unfortunately, that's not the case in the world we actually live in.
Click to expand...

Agree. Capitalism is broken.
 
Meadmaker said:
That's where you are wrong, and I don't just mean that there is an opinion or belief difference. You are simply factually wrong. At most, they believed that he had previously committed crimes. They did not believe that he had committed any crime recently, with the possible exception of a mistaken belief that he had committed criminal trespass. Therefore, their attempted detention of the man was illegal. Somebody spelled out the law in great detail a few pages back.

It's really an open and shut case. They had no right to detain the man. They had no right to threaten the man. Even if you believe the very worst about the jogger, that he was responsible for multiple burglaries prior to this incident, they still have no legal leg to stand on.

But, just for good measure, it's worthwhile to remind you that there is no evidence in our possession that any burglaries even happened, much less that Arbery was responsible. Perhaps in the future we will discover that more evidence exists.
Click to expand...

Their best case for self-defense is going to take a very broad reading of the citizen's arrest statute.

These laws exist so shopkeepers don't get in trouble for grabbing shoplifters and other such situations. I suspect it will take a dim view of rounding up the boys to go play vigilante based on some suspicious dude trespassing at a construction site.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Their best case for self-defense is going to take a very broad reading of the citizen's arrest statute.

These laws exist so shopkeepers don't get in trouble for grabbing shoplifters and other such situations. I suspect it will take a dim view of rounding up the boys to go play vigilante based on some suspicious dude trespassing at a construction site.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said.....except where you said Georgia is going to take a Dim view of an expansive view to this. I'm betting that is exactly what will happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom