Georgia lawyer says he leaked Ahmaud Arbery shooting video to 'stop a riot'
With defense attorneys like him, who needs prosecutors?
With defense attorneys like him, who needs prosecutors?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is defending yourself really that bad?
- Thread starter MartyF
- Start date
- Status
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
If they thought he was a burglar, they should have called police.
You cannot be defending yourself if you initiate the confrontation, you brandish the weapon, and you shoot and kill an innocent man.
To suggest that a man just “freeze” and cooperate two armed strangers that have accosted him is nonsense. He is blaming the victim for defending himself.
peace to you
Allow me to be clear.
I don’t agree with the actions of the father son duo.
However, the defense attorney was so stupid and incompetent that a video the prosecution was not releasing was leaked by the defense attorney. The defense attorney poisoned the jury pool against his clients. The defense attorney was also too stupid to advise his clients that what they did was wrong.
I point this out because a lot of inexperienced people think that you should never defend yourself.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
I’m confused by the title of the OP.
The attorney who released the video clearly believes it supports the father/son claim of self-defense.
My argument is simple. They cannot claim self-defense since they initiated the confrontation. They brandished weapons at a man minding his own business, jogging on the side walk.
The man had every right to defend himself from strangers that were brandishing weapons at him. I would have ran the the other way, he chose to stand his ground. He was killed by this man who accosted him with a weapon.
The father/son cannot claim self-defense. They committed murder.
peace to you
The attorney who released the video clearly believes it supports the father/son claim of self-defense.
My argument is simple. They cannot claim self-defense since they initiated the confrontation. They brandished weapons at a man minding his own business, jogging on the side walk.
The man had every right to defend himself from strangers that were brandishing weapons at him. I would have ran the the other way, he chose to stand his ground. He was killed by this man who accosted him with a weapon.
The father/son cannot claim self-defense. They committed murder.
peace to you
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
When I was in Kansas City about 20 years ago, there was a man who shot and killed his neighbor for driving the wrong way on the street. He claimed self-defense.
It was a one way street, but the neighbor would drive the wrong way a hundred feet or so to his driveway, rather than drive around the block.
When this man saw his neighbor driving the wrong way, he ran to him and stood in the street in front of the car and demanded he turn around and go around the block.
The neighbor began inching forward toward his driveway, pushing the man out of his way with his vehicle. The man in the street pulled a handgun and shot the neighbor, claiming he feared for his life.
He claimed self-defense. As I remember, it didn’t work. He initiated the confrontation, he brought the weapon, he had no legal right to be where he was (blocking traffic; attempting to enforce traffic laws)
peace to you
It was a one way street, but the neighbor would drive the wrong way a hundred feet or so to his driveway, rather than drive around the block.
When this man saw his neighbor driving the wrong way, he ran to him and stood in the street in front of the car and demanded he turn around and go around the block.
The neighbor began inching forward toward his driveway, pushing the man out of his way with his vehicle. The man in the street pulled a handgun and shot the neighbor, claiming he feared for his life.
He claimed self-defense. As I remember, it didn’t work. He initiated the confrontation, he brought the weapon, he had no legal right to be where he was (blocking traffic; attempting to enforce traffic laws)
peace to you
There is a problem. Georgia has a very strong Citizens arrest law. If the defendants can demonstrate that they had probable cause for the brief investigative detention, they will be found not guilty. The DA was handling the case the proper way. She was going to send the case to the Grand Jury. If the person shot had been white, GBI and turn coat Kemp would have never gotten involved.
Lawfully coming into contact with a person is not initiation. The first act of violence or offered violence is initiation. The AG is just flapping his jaws to create temporary political cover.
Problem being, most states do not allow citizens arrest for non felony violations. I am betting Kansas does not.
I'm sorry I didn't expect to have to explain this. The title is obviously confusing people. I probably should have used the word represent instead of defend.
There is a common phrase in the U.S. - A person who defends himself has a fool as a client.
What I was pointing out was that this duo would have been better served had they had no attorney at all!
Yes! The attorney is a complete and utter idiot. The attorney is a moron. Either that, or he is purposefully trying to get his clients put to death. Before this tape came out, the duo weren't even being arrested. Releasing the tape did nothing but hurt the attorney's clients. They immediately got arrested and the jury pool is poisoned against his clients.
Releasing the tape did not help the Attorney's clients.
Allow me to make this clear.
I do not agree with what they did.
Please stop acting like I do.
What they did was wrong. They don't realize this. An attorney, who is not an raving lunatic, would tell his clients that their case was not an open-and-shut case and that they should be prepared to go to jail. What the attorney did instead was tell them that what they did was ok and then went public acknowledging his and his clients stupidity.
May the stars shine on you pleasantly.
May your days be rosy and bright.
May roses sprout in you wake.
May you never have to feel discomfort.
May you health never fail.
May you never get indigestion.
May rain only come when you sleep and never spoil your picnics.
And of course . .
Peace to you!
There is a common phrase in the U.S. - A person who defends himself has a fool as a client.
What I was pointing out was that this duo would have been better served had they had no attorney at all!
Yes! The attorney is a complete and utter idiot. The attorney is a moron. Either that, or he is purposefully trying to get his clients put to death. Before this tape came out, the duo weren't even being arrested. Releasing the tape did nothing but hurt the attorney's clients. They immediately got arrested and the jury pool is poisoned against his clients.
Releasing the tape did not help the Attorney's clients.
Allow me to make this clear.
I do not agree with what they did.
Please stop acting like I do.
What they did was wrong. They don't realize this. An attorney, who is not an raving lunatic, would tell his clients that their case was not an open-and-shut case and that they should be prepared to go to jail. What the attorney did instead was tell them that what they did was ok and then went public acknowledging his and his clients stupidity.
May the stars shine on you pleasantly.
May your days be rosy and bright.
May roses sprout in you wake.
May you never have to feel discomfort.
May you health never fail.
May you never get indigestion.
May rain only come when you sleep and never spoil your picnics.
And of course . .
Peace to you!
Last edited:
Something a jury will decide. These type of things can go either way with the intricacies of the law, and in this case those there in Georgia regarding self-defense and the Citizens Arrest statue. All in all, it's going to cost those guys a pretty penny for some good lawyers. (I suggest they do not use the lawyer who released the video for sure).
Was he the attorney they hired or just a friend who thought he was helping them out?
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
It is unlawful to brandish at weapon at someone jogging down the street. That was the first act of violence and it was committed by the father/son.
peace to you
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Wow, gonna cost them money to get away with shooting an innocent man just jogging down the street. I have a little more faith in the law in Georgia.
peace to you
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
“Brief investigative detention”? I don’t think you understand this. They brandished weapons.
A law enforcement officer that brandishes his/her weapon must have probable cause to use deadly force. You don’t begin a “brief investigative detention” or “Tarry stop” with guns drawn. You are already in an arrest situation at that point and the probable cause must be of imminent danger to yourself or others.
A man jogging down the street is not a danger to anyone.
This was murder.
peace to you
Last edited:
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
From the article, it seems he was just an acquaintance, not the attorney of record for the father/son.
It seems strange that he had access to the video.
peace to you
Holding a weapon in a non threatening manner is not brandishing.
The man was not merely jogging. I firmly believe evidence will show that he was a fleeing criminal.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
I guess it depends on whether you are the object of that person’s attention.
Ok, let’s see, suppose you are a black man jogging down the street in the middle of the day minding your own business in the Deep South of the United States.
A couple of white men in a pickup truck carrying weapons pulls up next to you. Now, we don’t know what they said, but let’s suppose they were polite and just wanted to conduct a brief investigative stop, so one gets out of the truck with his shotgun and says, “excuse me sir, would you mind coming over here, we would like to ask you questions”?
Now, being a black man in the Deep South of the United States, do you really believe that he thought the white man with a shotgun that got out of the pickup truck was holding it in a “non-threatening” manner, or was he brandishing a shotgun?
Perhaps a reasonable black man in the Deep South of the United States jogging down the street in the middle of the day minding his own business might conclude his life was in imminent danger when the white man got out of the truck with the shotgun and decided to stand his ground rather than run.
If course, you and I might not think he was holding the weapon in a threatening manner. We might not have reason to think that.
peace to you
If you were a criminal who had been caught on video burglarizing a construction site and running from the neighbors who caught you......
Much more will come out in this case.
I a betting there turns out to be a lot more to our "25 year old jogger".
There is not much hate crime in the "Deep South" anymore. It is not 1960. Black men have a much greater chance of being shot in Chicago, than they do in South Georgia.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Based on what? What evidence is there? A black man running on the must be a fleeing criminal?
If they believed he was a fleeing criminal, they should have called the police. Pretty easy to follow a man running on a sidewalk.
So now you have progressed from the men with the guns were attempting a brief investigative stop to they were apprehending a fleeing criminal.
No evidence. Just opinion that has nothing to do with race, right? Just good ol boys making a citizens arrest.
peace to you
- Status