Ahmaud Arbery Case

Many on the right and libertarian side condemned this shooting when it first happened. I did, and I remember @SneakySFDude condemning it.

This was a no brainer from the beginning. It bears no resemblance to the Rittenhouse case at all.

In this case, A guy, (Arbery) is minding his own business running along a road, and two idiots stop him on what they speculate are his intentions and actions. Thse two guys were the aggressors. Arbery was not the aggressor. This whole thing was just stupidity. and these two guys should be tried, convicted and punished. After having said that, there isnt a whole lot left to say.

With Rittenhouse, you have a young kid serving his community. He is trying to make things better. He is cleaning grafiti off walls and cleaning up debris. He never argued with anyone or provoked anyone. The only thing he did, was to have the audacity to extinguish a dumpster fire that Rosenbaum started. Rosenbaum was the aggressor, It want Rittenhouse. Rosenbaum, along with Huber and exploding bicep dude deserved what they got for their own stupidity. They attacked a guy holding a gun. One of which only had a skateboard. That is just stupidity.

You dont attack guys with guns armed with only a skateboard. It doesnt take a degree to figure that out.

Similarly, on a larger scale, countries dont attack other countries that have nukes. That is why so many countries want them. It would be sheer stupidity, for us or any other country to attack a country that possessed nuclear weapons. I just hope that with “Lets Go Brandon’s” cognitive abilities, he hasnt lost enough that it looks like a good idea to him.

1 Like

Which it totally irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

That’s my recollection as well. Nobody supported this as self defense.

One poster who should be well recognized as a belligerent contrarian steered every criticism of the shooters to focus on how it was also Arbery’s fault for charging Travis. It was not quite approving the kill, rather an intense effort to avoid fully blaming the shooters.

It was a case of “the shooter’s were wrong, but I want to argue against libs”.


The only “right side” member here, as I recall, who did not condemn the shooter and accomplices was @WR.

1 Like

That’s was the only person that I recall who was sympathetic to the defendants.

1 Like

The Texas law says a citizen can apprehend someone if they actually see someone committing a felony. So, like if you come across a rapist you should allow them to walk away? Now you had better actually see the crime and be certain it is a felony.

Don’t take this as disagreement with your overall motive. But the two cases were actually very similar from a legal perspective.

  1. both involved someone being pursued that didn’t require it.
  2. in both cases the pursuers were acting aggressively and dangerously.
  3. in both cases the person being perused had reasonable claim to self defense for being afraid for their life or serious injury.

The main difference: Rittenhouse was armed and Arbery was not.

Arbery had the right to try and defend himself, zero doubt about it. That said…. It wasn’t a very wise choice when the other side has firearms and you do not.

Actually witnessing a crime is clearly something very different. Ideally first call the police immediately and then do what you can to stop it.

911 and then try and hold the perp for the police.

Happens all the time.

Citizens take action and hold the perp after he commits a crime.

Perp arrested by police.

Jersey has such a law.

Citizens can and do take action against criminals.

Of course in the Arbery case, there was no crime observed just speculation, which isn’t nearly enough to arm and chase and ultimately kill.


The crime was trespassing. That’s why they stopped him.

And don’t respond with the typical dishonest “so trespassers should be executed?” All I said was that trespassing was the reason the defendents had for stopping him.

It may not have been a wise choice, but from Arbery’s perspective, it may have been his only choice. When you are sure you are going to die if you do nothing, doing anything is better. Remember, we have the benefit of knowing the motive of his assailants, he did not,

Correction: shot him.


In your parallel universe maybe. But in reality, they only stopped him as a citizens arrest. The shooting occurred when a fight broke out. If you want to lie, you have plenty of company… which comes at the expense of intellectual integrity.

They should have stopped him.

He committed no observed crime.


You can’t even get your bull feces correct…amirite? :sunglasses: :tumbler_glass:

1 Like

His grammar is wrong, but his thought is correct. They had no basis on which to make contact.

1 Like

Thus “should not” was what he meant to say but…“couldn’t get his bull feces” correct…which was my point.

At the very beginning, in the very first thread that discussed this case, after observing the videos, there was little to no doubt in my mind that this was murder…and I said so.

1 Like

Not sure of the mentality of these two imbeciles but grabbing firearms and chasing someone down has a good chance of not ending well when a phone call to the cops with a description of a suspect will do.
A “citizens arrest” defense? Spare us.

1 Like

What has been up with this defense? Not enough “bubba’s” on the jury, no “black pastors”, “dirty toe nails”? Seriously?

1 Like

Not sure it’s true but I think I read somewhere they did call the cops and the cop told them they could make the arrest if it’s a felony. But if he did I would expect he said if you see him commit one, not if you suspect he has. Which is why they will be going to prison.