Self-Defense or Manslaughter

[Scratch]

@WildRose

Everything could have been fine for all involved right up to the end and the “suspect” could then have taken it as a slight and attacked.

When you do so, the first duty of the guy with the gun and his partner is to prevent the “suspect” from getting control of it and deadly force is then lawful.

So if you’re out doing whatever, running etc …a couple guys in a truck come up to you and start pointing guns at you, your just supposed acquiesce and do what they say without question? They dont identify themselves as police officers etc…Now if that guy had a gun on him, would he have been in the right to pull it and shoot these guys since he felt threatened?

[anon91495210]

Well, I trust the NYT as far as I can throw them.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@anon91495210

Well, I trust the NYT as far as I can throw them.

That’s nice.

Are you saying you think the DA hasn’t recused himself?

You think the Times just made that up?

[WildRose]

Assertion absent evidence doesn’t make it a fact.

[WildRose]

And? That’s exactly what he should have done as soon as the question was raised. That is the ethical thing to do.

[Guvnah]

@anon91495210

If he was simply out on a run, no reason for a citizen to stop him and maybe HE was acting in self defense trying to get the gun? I can tell you this, if I’m out jogging and someone starts yelling at me and trying to stop me, more than likely I’ll be inclined to act in self defense and I’m always armed.

My initial reaction too.

Typical journalism here, though. Too many holes to know the facts. Plenty of innuendo. Trial by media.

Shades of Covington.

It’s easy to say, “Hey, this is Deep South! White guys in a truck with guns hunting down a black guy on foot. What more do you need to know??” And it’s easy to believe that depiction. Yes, it’s Deep South. That’s not a hard-to-believe scenario in backwater Georgia.

However we all should know better than to leap to media-guided conclusions.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@WildRose

And? That’s exactly what he should have done as soon as the question was raised. That is the ethical thing to do.

Actually, the ethical thing would have probably been to recuse himself as soon as he got the case - not weeks after he had already decided to not file charges.

But it’s all the same in the end.

[anon91495210]

I’m questioning the conclusion that he recused himself after protecting his guys because of the complaint from Arbery’s family.

Brunswick DA Jackie Johnson cited a conflict of interest in turning the case over to the Ware County district attorney.
April 2nd. He had recused himself already.

To complicate the matters, because McMichael worked in the district attorney’s office, George E. Barnhill, the Waycross County D.A., chose to recuse himself for what would have been a conflict of interest. He chose to have the case transferred to a nearby county.

I don’t see a clear timeline from the other two articles suggesting he was planning to protect these two and only caved to pressure. I’m not sure if YOU made that leap of faith or if the NYT made it but I don’t think there’s enough detail out there to make that statement.

[WildRose]

There is no ethical obligation unless he feels there’s a conflict or someone raises it as an issue. The man was retired he wasn’t on the payroll.

[H_Arendt]

@Snow96

Moments later, after a struggle over the shotgun, Mr. Arbery was killed, shot at least twice.

This changes my initial reaction.

Without hearing all the evidence and all the witnesses and such . . . hard to make a call.

Where they correct in chasing after him WITH guns? No
During a strugle could it be considered justified to shoot the person you where chasing? Yes. Was it in this case? See what I put above.

Does anyone know what evidence exists about regarding “a struggle over the shotgun.” Is this the testimony of the surviving participants or is there an independent party describing what happened.

I don’t believe the Times article makes that clear, bu it is essential. One of the troubling aspects of “stand your ground laws” is that it allows those who kill to level accusations at the deceased that the deceased has no way to respond to.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@WildRose

There is no ethical obligation unless he feels there’s a conflict or someone raises it as an issue. The man was retired he wasn’t on the payroll.

You don’t think he recognized there was a conflict of interest as soon as he was handed a case involving a former co-worker of his?

[WildRose]

No and you can’t demonstrate one either.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@WildRose

No and you can’t demonstrate one either.

Of course I can. It is by definition a conflict of interest to be in charge of prosecuting someone who is a personal acquaintance.

[WildRose]

No there isn’t and you can’t show that to be true.

If that were the case every case filed in a rural district would require a change of venue.

You’re just pulling things out of dark smelly places.

[TheRedComet]

Yeah definitely need more information on this one.

The investigation will certainly be interesting.

[Smyrna]

This reminds me of George Zimmerman-vu all over again.

[WuWei]

@Scratch

@WildRose

Everything could have been fine for all involved right up to the end and the “suspect” could then have taken it as a slight and attacked.

When you do so, the first duty of the guy with the gun and his partner is to prevent the “suspect” from getting control of it and deadly force is then lawful.

So if you’re out doing whatever, running etc …a couple guys in a truck come up to you and start pointing guns at you, your just supposed acquiesce and do what they say without question? They dont identify themselves as police officers etc…Now if that guy had a gun on him, would he have been in the right to pull it and shoot these guys since he felt threatened?

A black guy being chased by two white guys in a pick up truck, one of whom is in the back… in Georgia.

You betcha.

[Scratch]

Hmmm seems like a few posts of mine in this tread were removed…regarding their race, pickup truck, rural Georgia etc

[Samm]

@WildRose

Not nearly enough details in that article to make any decision.

It’s also at least questionably written with a clear anti gun/racial bias.

“The grabbed their guns”. Where is the evidence of that? Not uncommon for people to carry a handgun or have a shotgun in their truck especially in rural areas.

What instigated the physical altercation? Did they chase this guy down and tackle him intiating a scuffle or did they simply engage him to see who he was and why he was running through the neighborhood? If he took that as some sort of slight and started a fight over it he was probably justifiably killed because when you attack someone who’s carrying lawfully that is an aggravated assault the second you attempt to disarm them.

How about just letting the investigation play out rather than jumping to conclusions?

However, if the shotgun was brandished in a threatening manner or perhaps pointed toward him, he had reason to fear for his life and thus had the right to defend himself. The man who shot him cannot claim self defense if he was the aggressor.

[WildRose]

If it was “brandished” that is an unlawful act absent a justifiable use of deadly force. Simply having one is not a threat.

Pointing it at the man without a lawful use of deadly force would also be an unlawful act, aggravated assault.

Just too few details here to make any determinations.