Crime Ahmaud Arbery Shooting v4 (autopsy report)

[Strychnine]

Yep. They didn’t witness any crime. They need a hail mary self defense (e.g. he was going for the gun) to stick, I reckon.

I dunno man.. Georgia is a "Stand Your Ground" state and as the prosecutor said in her opening arguments, "As soon as they hit (Ahmaud) him with their vehicle, he was under attack."

"What that means is if you are justified in using threats of force, force, or deadly force to protect yourself or others, to protect your habitation, your home, your car, your place of business, or to protect your property other than your habitation, the law in Georgia says you have no duty to retreat and you can stand your ground and exercise that level of force, including deadly force, so long as you are justified in the use of that force.

Whether you’re justified in the use of that force or not depends on the statute that you rely upon in using it. For instance, if you use deadly force against another person to protect yourself, you can only stand your ground if you’re justified in using that level of force."

Georgia stand your ground law (uslawshield.com)

That could be argued that it gave the victim any and all reasonable means to stand his ground and protect his life from his attackers.

 

[sickc0d3r]

I dunno man.. Georgia is a "Stand Your Ground" state and as the prosecutor said in her opening arguments, "As soon as they hit (Ahmaud) him with their vehicle, he was under attack."

"What that means is if you are justified in using threats of force, force, or deadly force to protect yourself or others, to protect your habitation, your home, your car, your place of business, or to protect your property other than your habitation, the law in Georgia says you have no duty to retreat and you can stand your ground and exercise that level of force, including deadly force, so long as you are justified in the use of that force.

Whether you’re justified in the use of that force or not depends on the statute that you rely upon in using it. For instance, if you use deadly force against another person to protect yourself, you can only stand your ground if you’re justified in using that level of force."

Georgia stand your ground law (uslawshield.com)

That could be argued that it gave the victim any and all reasonable means to stand his ground and protect his life from his attackers.

Unless some new evidence comes to light, I believe Arbery was 100% in the right here, no question at all. Just to be clear.

I was only speculating as to what possible defense the accused might try to mount.

 

[sickc0d3r]

I dunno man.. Georgia is a "Stand Your Ground" state and as the prosecutor said in her opening arguments, "As soon as they hit (Ahmaud) him with their vehicle, he was under attack."

"What that means is if you are justified in using threats of force, force, or deadly force to protect yourself or others, to protect your habitation, your home, your car, your place of business, or to protect your property other than your habitation, the law in Georgia says you have no duty to retreat and you can stand your ground and exercise that level of force, including deadly force, so long as you are justified in the use of that force.

Whether you’re justified in the use of that force or not depends on the statute that you rely upon in using it. For instance, if you use deadly force against another person to protect yourself, you can only stand your ground if you’re justified in using that level of force."

Georgia stand your ground law (uslawshield.com)

That could be argued that it gave the victim any and all reasonable means to stand his ground and protect his life from his attackers.

Also, this explanation reminds me a little of the Trayvon case. It was pretty clear to most of us that ZimZam was stalking and agitating Trayvon, and most reasonable people thought Trayvon probably had a legitimate reason to feel threatened enough to defend himself with force when confronted. Where it changed is when he got the upper hand, and ZimZam was getting beat up and called no joy. Once that happened, ZimZam regained his right to self defense.

That did not happen in this case, even if they could convince someone Arbery went for their gun. As you say, he was still rightfully defending himself. I think these morons are proper fucked, and good riddance.

 

[Strychnine]

Unless some new evidence comes to light, I believe Arbery was 100% in the right here, no question at all. Just to be clear.

I was only speculating as to what possible defense the accused might try to mount.

Oh yeah, yeah! I get it brother, I'm just discussing the case. I'd love to be able to argue the point from the defendants but every time I try to come up with a reasonable defense, I counter it quicker than a hiccup.

If anyone has anything, I'd love to hear it. Civil discussions like these keep my mind sharp.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Oh yeah, yeah! I get it brother, I'm just discussing the case. I'd love to be able to argue the point from the defendants but every time I try to come up with a reasonable defense, I counter it quicker than a hiccup.

If anyone has anything, I'd love to hear it. Civil discussions like these keep my mind sharp.

Self defense is their only chance, imo, and it’s a complete Hail Mary. Gotta somehow convince a jury that Arbery’s right to self defense was lost and transferred back to the defendants when he moved in their direction. As Cubo said, they’re really just hoping for the right jurors, lol. They need some help from John Cusak’s character in Runaway Jury, imo, tbh.

 

[b34stmode]

I’m curious why the idea that he was jogging is such a joke in your opinion? Based on the facts it seems as likely as any accusation of “up to no good”. More likely, even.

It was broad daylight, he was wearing shorts and a t-shirt with no bag or backpack or anything, he was on foot, and he was literally jogging.
Yes he stopped and walked around on a construction site, but nothing was stolen, was it? The owner said people walked in and out of that site all the time.
In fact, the only reported theft in the entire neighborhood that year was a gun stolen from a truck on New Year’s Eve, iirc.

Of course, it is possible he was up to something, and trespassing is a technically crime, but there’s way more evidence that he was out for a jog than out looking to steal shit or do something nefarious.

I have no idea what Arbery was doing, but the argument he was out jogging is just as valid as "he was burglarizing the property" IE: There is no concrete proof of either.

 

[b34stmode]

Self defense is their only chance, imo, and it’s a complete Hail Mary. Gotta somehow convince a jury that Arbery’s right to self defense was lost and transferred back to the defendants when he moved in their direction. As Cubo said, they’re really just hoping for the right jurors, lol. They need some help from John Cusak’s character in Runaway Jury, imo, tbh.

They are already rolling with citizens arrest, and it was their duty to protect their neighbors property. As I stated earlier, these guys are beyond fucked. I have no idea what I would argue, but I know I wouldn't go with the "It was my duty to protect my neighborhood" line of thinking.

 

[Staph infection]

Ut think the fact yall have a"business as usual" stance to the jury selection is the exact reason why the media is pointing it out.

The entire case has been covered in cold molasses from the word go, but this...this is fine.

The South gonna South is the wrong answer.

Cant say that then act like there aint serious race issues below the bible belt.

There are race issues above the bible belt also, they just swing the other way so everyone is supposed to ignore them.

 

[sickc0d3r]

They are already rolling with citizens arrest, and it was their duty to protect their neighbors property. As I stated earlier, these guys are beyond fucked. I have no idea what I would argue, but I know I wouldn't go with the "It was my duty to protect my neighborhood" line of thinking.

Sounded like they aren’t going with citizens arrest based on the opening statements. I’m not watching the trial, though, just reading it here second hand.

 

[jk7707]

I have no idea what Arbery was doing, but the argument he was out jogging is just as valid as "he was burglarizing the property" IE: There is no concrete proof of either.

What? They literally approached him as he was jogging down the road. While there is zero evidence he burglarized anything at the construction site.

 

[sickc0d3r]

I have no idea what Arbery was doing, but the argument he was out jogging is just as valid as "he was burglarizing the property" IE: There is no concrete proof of either.

I mean, he literally was jogging and there’s no evidence he commit burglary that day. So one explanation of his whereabouts seems more supported by facts than the other.

 

[sickc0d3r]

What? They literally approached him as he was jogging down the road. While there is zero evidence he burglarized anything at the construction site.

Hah, beat me to it.

 

[koquerelle]

if a juror pointed out during questioning [paraphrasing]: “yes, I have strong opinions about X. But I also understand the necessity of having to put those strong opinions in a box and set them off to the side in instances like (a court case).”

honestly, that’s the best answer I could hope for from a juror.

I doubt many people can do that. Look at the WR. You'll have a 300-page thread with the same arguments over and over. I haven't seen many people change their opinion.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

and most reasonable people thought Trayvon probably had a legitimate reason to feel threatened enough to defend himself with force when confronted.

No shit? People argued that it's ok to beat someone's ass for following you?

 

[sickc0d3r]

No shit? People argued that it's ok to beat someone's ass for following you?

Nope.

 

[b34stmode]

What? They literally approached him as he was jogging down the road. While there is zero evidence he burglarized anything at the construction site.

He was trespassing, 100%.

 

[b34stmode]

Sounded like they aren’t going with citizens arrest based on the opening statements. I’m not watching the trial, though, just reading it here second hand.

Hm, what did you read? I listened to it live, and the sons attorney went with citizens arrest.

 

[Strychnine]

Hm, what did you read? I listened to it live, and the sons attorney went with citizens arrest.

The prosecutor said in her opening statements that the defendants never mentioned citizens arrest to the deceased or the police.

"Hey! We want to talk to you!" (is what the said to the victim) Isn't saying I'm placing you under citizens arrest.

 

[b34stmode]

The prosecutor said in her opening statements that the defendants never mentioned citizens arrest to the deceased or the police.

"Hey! We want to talk to you!" (is what the said to the victim) Isn't saying I'm placing you under citizens arrest.

Oh yeah, they are going to get DESTROYED going the citizens arrest route, as they should. I'm simply stating the defense attorney for the son was arguing it was the sons duty to protect his neighborhood and perform a citizens arrest for the burglary by Arbery.

edit: Now remember there are 3 attorneys, even the dad has a different attorney, and I missed his opening. Maybe they argue different points, it's extremely bizarre trial to be honest. Also Roddy has a HORRIBLE local attorney that makes a fool of himself everyday so far.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Hm, what did you read? I listened to it live, and the sons attorney went with citizens arrest.

Reading this thread, I may have misunderstood (based on what @Strychnine mentioned). If that’s the defense they’re going with, I stand corrected.