Posts
Now that Rittenhouse has been found innocent, I got reminded of another "self-defense" trial going on.
The three guys involved in shooting Ahmaud Arbery didn't have legal grounds to brandish at him, let alone fire a shot. They probably didn't even have grounds to detain him.
Mr Arbery shouldn't have tried for the shotgun. In the video I saw it looked like his pulling on the barrel is what caused the shot, because McMichael the Younger was violating Rule #3.
I am thinking that all three of them are going to be doing some time over this death.
And I say this while understanding the frustration of being rendered impotent to stop crime you are aware is happening, but don't have proof enough to act upon.
The general ambivalence of the police to respond to property crimes doesn't help at all.
And we haven't even gotten to what appears to be a cover up by the local DA!
Though, if we're going to be condemning the Brunswick District Attorney's Office for telling the cops to not make an arrest, we've got to be condemning all the various DA's offices whom declined to charge BLM and Antifa rioters too.
And I do.
I eagerly await the McMichaels and Bryan being convicted and watching the MSM try to reconcile it against Rittenhouse being found innocent because racism.
The video was ambiguous but Arbery cut around the vehicle and charged the person with a shotgun. He either grabbed for or held the barrel of the shotgun. Looks like Arbery converted the "incident" into "asault". Charging at a person makes it into a new game. If Arbery had kept on going, there would most likely have been no shooting. I don't know how local law reads for McMichael and the shotgun before the asault. Possession in public is not, by itself, illegal. The rest of the incident has been worthless media babble.
ReplyDeleteWatching their testimony, I think that the younger McMichaels thought he was a cop with the privileges and immunities thereof.
DeleteHe kept citing use of force doctrine for cops that patently doesn't apply to us unwashed common citizens.
While I think that cops shouldn't have special immunities that we folk don't have, the law at present says normal folk don't get to use police's use of force rules.
Yet still, Arbery charged and assaulted. He was the one who took the decisive move. He could have backed away or disengaged, but he didn't.
DeleteAnd that's not counting the fact that "I was jus joggin" was his modus operandi for casing and burglaring.
Yes, the guy shouldn't have had his finger on the trigger, but when a feral jogger is charging you, why wouldn't you have your finger on the trigger?
Seriously, this case is the twisted convoluted and positively Byzantine case the media made the Rittenhouse case out to be.
Were the guys wrong in questioning someone who matched the description of someone who was known to burgle? And how many times have the police ignored any calls relating to Arbery-ish characters who were out-of-place? And if the bubbas had 'no right' of self defense when Arbery charged them, did Arbery have right of self defense to assault the bubbas? How much damage could Arbery have done to the bubbas if he hadn't been shot? How much damage with just his fists, if no firearms were involved? How much if Arbery got control of the shotgun he was obviously working very hard to get control of?
Way too many questions. Should result in an involuntary manslaughter, as all were at fault.
And... it's funny. The Rittenhouse trial was about... Rittenhouse slabbing 2.5 people. But the Arbery trial isn't about Arbery trying to attack three bubbas? Hmmm.... Tricky way of presenting the case.