Guns: how much longer will it take ....

His phrasing is entirely consistent with a belief that the jogger was an escaping burglar.

Your characterization of their actions omits the key fact that Travis McMichael only opened fire when the jogger charged at him and tried to seize his weapon. Attempting to question someone is hardly evidence of malicious intent.

It is pretty clear that Travis and Gregory McMichael were using the term suspect in a "might have done it, maybe, possibly" sense.

Attempting to question someone is hardly evidence of malicious intent.

All of the evidence so far is entirely consistent with an attempt to confront a suspected burglar

There is no evidence they suspected he was a burglar.

MontereyJack wrote:

You have no evidence forof any conversation in the confrontation. By your own interpretation of the constitution Awbrey had every right to self defense to try to get the threat to himself removed.

That is incorrect. People don't have the right to attack people for merely holding a shotgun.

MontereyJack wrote:

/sineone earlier ub this thread cited Georgia law to the effect that brandishing a weapon is a felony, so the son was clearly guilty just by his armed presence.

That is a loophole in Georgia law, and that loophole is being closed.

MontereyJack wrote:

it was murder.

That is incorrect. Under Georgia law, deaths connected to a misdemeanor are involuntary manslaughter.

if Arbery was legally carrying and pulled his gun to defend himself and killed the two white guys, who would you defend?

Following someone for several minutes, profiling him on no evidence as a burglary suspect, stopping him on no evidence and then attempting to question him while he was unarmed, while holding a shotgun are not neutral actions. They are actions that would put a reasonable person in fear for his life. You claim self defense is a basic right, so Auhmaud was perfectly justified in attempting to remove a validly perceived threat to his life.

A charge of murder against the McMichaels is perfectly reasonable therefore.

Criminals will make up any self serving excuse to justify why they committed a crime. So taking a killers words only at face value irrespective of the surrounding circumstances / events / evidence, is hardly a good argument for manslaughter over murder.

So when I asked 'on what reasonable ground' he suspected the victim of breaking in to houses - It should have been obvious that you would need to provide specific information.

What burglary was Arbery escaping? That is your reason for saying 'haulting ass' and 'running' is justified...what robbery was he 'fleeing'? And of course you can only flee a breakin that you just done, because once you're well and truly gone, you are no longer fleeing the scene or pursuit. So once again - what robbery was he fleeing?

Arbery was gunned down 23 Feb and apart from a Feb report by the McMichaels of theft of a firearm from Jnr's open truck, no breakin been reported in the previous several weeks (last one in January)...so he wasn't fleeing a breakin...Snr didn't know of any breakin he could be fleeing...and therefore had no reasonable grounds to believe Arbery was fleeing.

From yet another angle - what Breakin at any time could the victim even be a suspect for (one that he could be arrested for)? Snr, being an Ex Police Officer and DA investigator, would understand the 'criminal standard of proof', and what would hold up in a criminal court. He would know that there was no evidence that he knew of that would hold up in a court. He would know that even police wouldn't be able to arrest Arbery on the evidence he (Snr) knew.

So even the smallest amount of common sense would say that a citizen wouldn't be able to conduct a citizens arrest in those circumstances....but Snr still wants to describe the victim as a suspect and hunt him down...So Malicious

...So he has no reasonable grounds to suspect Arbery of either a breakin, nor to be fleeing a breakin, and being an ex police officer would very well know the difference between a jogging gait and a fleeing run....but chooses to describe the victim as 'hauling ass' and 'running'. So, Malicious.

...nor does he say anything to 911 similar to 'he might have broken into a house', nor to the police who took his statement (so he's not using the 'might have, possibly, could have type of suspect)...

...and being en ex police officer, its highly unlikely he would use that type of 'suspect' terminology (without malicious intent...and that is what I'm saying - he used this terminology maliciously)

So to summarise:
- no reasonable ground to suspect Arbery of any robbery (that would hold up in a court)
- no reasonable ground to suspect Arbery of fleeing the scene of a robbery (none just committed)

- knows he doesn't have enough evidence for police to arrest (so should know 99.99% certainty that he as a private citizen couldn't arrest Arbery)

- knows that the victim isn't a 'suspect' in any criminal standard of evidence sense...but still describes him as a suspect

- knows it's just a jogging gait, but describes it as 'hauling ass' and 'running'

...and arms up, hunts him down, and ends up killing him

...I'm calling this malicious on the part of Snr.

You seem to have missed where I've twice now said that Jnr may just be plain stupid.

Not enough is known about him / he hasn't said enough to work out if he had malicious intent, or was just plain stupid.

Nor has anyone suggested this is (if it is at all true, rather than just self serving). It's all the other circumstances, actions and words that show malicious intent.

There is no evidence they suspected he was a burglar.

Oralloy, if Arbery was legally carrying and pulled his gun to defend himself and killed the two white guys, who would you defend?

Fear is natural, but to let it command our behavior is cowardice.

So cowardice is seen as a extenuating circumstance in US law?

As you always do, you've got it backwards again.

Good point, and not theoretical. Someone could easily dispense justice to these two

these two murderers,