Federal law defines brandished as, “with reference to a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) means that all or part of the weapon was displayed, or the presence of the weapon was otherwise made known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the weapon was directly visible to that person. Accordingly, although the dangerous weapon does not have to be directly visible, the weapon must be present.” (18 USCS Appx § 1B1.1)
https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/brandished/
Federal law is not the jursdiction (2 points for anybody who knows why I spelled it that way)
1 Like
Two guys with guns try to stop you in the street and you think that this is the time for Arbery to walk up and have a casual conversation? I’ve seen you say some ridiculous things over the years here but this tops them all and nothing even comes close.
The two white guys are committing an unlawful detention at that point. They had absolutely no credible or legal reason to detain him at that point.
The use of guns while unlawfully detaining him pushes this into attempted kidnapping. Kidnapping doesn’t have to be for ransom or for any set length of time. If you use force (they were) to unlawfully detain someone (they were) against the person’s will (it was) then its kidnapping.
A reasonable person in Arbery’s situation would have every right to be terrified and think they are about to be robbed, killed, or something like that.
Arbery had nowhere to flee so he tried to disarm the guy and was shot and killed for it.
6 Likes
This is not a federal issue, state law applies.
1 Like
He could have stopped as soon as he recognized something that made him uncomfortable.
Charging a guy with a gun is a really stupid move and it got him killed.
Nowhere to go? Left or right.
When in doubt stop and assess the situation, you don’t charge at someone with a gun unless you have absolutely no other option.
1 Like
Let me rephrase without using the word brandishing.
If you and I were in an argument and I drew my gun from it’s holster. Is that a deadly threat?
Why is a rifle in someone’s hands and not slung being treated differently?
1 Like
Georgia law explanation
There was no argument here.
You would have to be able to articulate why you felt you had a legitimate reason to draw the weapon to start with otherwise it’s an unlawful act.
1 Like
Ok. So why is a rifle in hand being treated differently than a pistol in hand?
That article seems to indicate that the two in the truck would be up for assault charges even if they didn’t shoot the guy.
Because it’s a long gun. You can’t carry it on your hip.
1 Like
No, their guns were not pointed at the guy until he charged the guy on the ground.
1 Like
Slings are a thing.
It is lawful to suspect a jogger of breaking a law so you can get your gun out and detain them?
Or maybe it’s ok to go to Walmart’s parking lot and confront people wearing masks because you suspect they robbed the place.
Doesn’t matter as long as you don’t point it at someone unlawfully and you’d be foolish to have it slung in such a situation making it useless as a defensive weapon.
1 Like
Depends on the circumstances.
The totality of circumstances always dictates if your actions are lawful or not.
1 Like
So it’s ok to unholster a pistol whenever you want so long as you don’t point it at anyone?
Are you being intentionally obtuse here?
You would have to be able to articulate why you felt you had a legitimate reason to draw the weapon to start with otherwise it’s an unlawful act.
Long guns are not handguns.
1 Like
I’m sure there will be more to come out about this.
The facts that I am aware of right now is 2 men followed a jogger that was suspected of being on an open construction site. Thet had weapons on them, not sure if they were pointed the whole time at the jogger. The jogger didn’t have alot of options it seemed, and he chose to fight back. I’m not seeing the self defense case.
Hell hockey has 2 minutes for instigating, to quote bill burr.
