It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: FellowHuman
The way Arbery acts...
originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
Your Obviously Not a Lawyer , and Neither am I . How about we Leave this Incident up to the Professionals to Decide Shall We
originally posted by: FellowHuman
The McMichaels behavior of following him and trying to get him to stop, was the result of previous behavior from Ahmaud.
originally posted by: matafuchs
I know you have a hard time grasping the facts and like to go on and on and on and on and on about your opinion but they had a legal basis in that state and through LEO contact to make a citizen's arrest with Arbery's past behavior and the behavior from past intrusions because they had prior knowledge of him committing 'felonies'
originally posted by: FellowHuman
If they are in the presence or get immediate knowledge of a felony, which in this instance i would say they were both in presence to a felony...
Likewise i just want to mention, this is why it was so important for Ahmaud to be cooperative.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: FellowHuman
The way Arbery acts...
...is directly tied to the behavior of the vigilantes prior to the shooting. If there aren't three men with guns chasing him in their vehicle while impeding his movement there is no confrontation.
originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: matafuchs
Agreed
To test this theory, take a rubber band and pull stretch it all the way back. Now aim this at somebody (don't actually do this) and see how they react. I bet they flinch, winch and try to put distance between you and them
Same theory with a firearm, unless the person is completely out of their mind on drugs
originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: vonclod
I know he wasn't Vonclod, just a general statement. Im not disagreeing with you either. Its a crappy situation, because most credible self defense training teaches you to try and control a gun (especially a long gun) and if you genuinely weren't doing anything wrong and two non-LEOs with guns pulled up on you, it would seem exactly like an attack (because it would be).
Of course the natural reaction is to run, but generally that isn't the best answer since firearms have an functionally unlimited distance (in close quarters relative ranges) so your only chance of unarmed vs. armed is to get control of their weapon or somehow get the weapon out of the fight
Bad situation all around. My own feelings toward this are clear, just trying to be as objective and clear headed as possible. I don't doubt these guys made a mistake, and its a damn shame it cost somebody his life. Fortunately these guys are going to get their day in court, and they'll have to answer for every action taken that day. I just know how attorneys are, McMichael's lawyers are going to paint them as heroes and Arbury as a bloodthirsty criminal, while Arbury's lawyers will paint him as an innocent victim and McMichaels' as bloodthirsty killers. What is the truth? It seems there is no evidence he was committing any crime, and is therefore presumably not guilty of anything.
Were these guys genuinely concerned with crime and trying to do the right thing? Their intent will make a big difference here. Or were they trying to play hero or worse?
originally posted by: FellowHuman
They witnessed what they saw in their eyes...